Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2011-00008 for BLD2011-00081 Addendum - GEO Geological Review - 4/4/2011 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 Geotechnical ReportReview Acceptance Letter April 04, 2011 JEFF WERDALL Case No.: GE02011-00008 Parcel No.: 122162100001 Proiect Description: GEO/STORMWATER REVIEW The Geotechnical Report for JEFF WERDALL has been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. The report was prepared by Michael Staten dated 4/29/2010. Based on the certification provided by the licensed engineer/geologist, the referenced Geotechnical Report was prepared in general accordance with the requirements in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Areas 17.01.100.E.5. Mason County considers the review valid until such time as scope of project, site conditions, and/or regulations change. Should the scope of work, site conditions, and/or regulations change after the original review, then an addendum from the original author of the report may be required to address these changes. The report would only be re-reviewed if a permit for development were submitted after these changes occur. Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 365 if you have questions. Sincer y, Po Allan Borden Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 4/4/2011 Page 1 of 2 GE02011-00008 4/4/2011 Case No.: GE02011-00008 Comments: Reviewed stormwater report with Loretta Swanson on 02.28.2011 and found several points to address. Werdall forwards to county the corrections and updates by M. Staten on 04.01.2011. Staff signs off approval & meeting standards on 04.04.2011. AHB 4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2 GE02011-00008 /t Geotechnical Report for Werdall Logging and Single Family Residence fZAL--a1 - O'JO0 Parcel Number 2501 State Route 302 Mason County, Washington October 18, 2007 Project #0727 Prepared For: Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 . Belfair, Washington 98528 YD�'�, Prepared By: z Envirotech Engineering 74 NE Hurd Road too Belfair, Washington 98528 .ONA G Phone: 360-275-9374 Fax: 360-275-4789 EXPIRES D Zo0 i r i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose of Investigation 2 1.3 Scope of Work 2 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 2.1 General Observations 3 2.2 Topography 3 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology 3 2.3 Drainage 4 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations 4 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5 3.1 Field Methods 5 3.2 Field Sampling 5 3.3 Field Testing 5 3.4 Subsurface Conditions 6 3.4.1 Groundwater 7 3.5 Soils Testing 7 3.5.1 Visual Classification 7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 8 5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations 9 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity 9 5.1.2 Settlement 10 5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures 10 5.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations 11 5.3.1 Excavations 11 5.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill 11 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill 12 5.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations 13 5.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control 13 5.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts 14 5.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks 15 5.4.3 Erosion Control 15 5.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 16 5.4.5 Vegetation Considerations 1-7 5.5 Earthquakes and Liquefaction Potential 17 5.6 Driveway Considerations 18 5.7 Timber Harvesting Recommendations 20 6.0 LIMITATIONS 22 t a APPENDIX Appendix A- Site Plan Appendix B - Soil Information Soil Cross-Section Soil Logs Well Reports General Stability Map Appendix C-Erosion Control Appendix D -Drainage Details Appendix E- Slope Stability Appendix F- Geological Map Appendix G- Vicinity Map Appendix H-Driveway Details t 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a vacant property identified as parcel number 1221-62-100001 located in Mason County, Washington (Project). As presented herein, this report includes information pertaining to the Project in this Introduction Section; observations of the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section; field methods and soils descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section; and, recommendations for foundation, settlement, earthwork, lateral earth pressures, slope stability and erosion control in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section. Where necessary, this report also incorporates special provisions due to the anticipated deforesting. An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech with the property owners, Jeff and Pam Werdall, on June 9, 2007. It was determined that slopes in excess of 40% were present within 300 feet of the property, and subsequently will require a geotechnical report pursuant to landslide hazard areas of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. In addition, recommendations pertaining to feasibility and extents of deforesting is required. During the evaluation and site visits by Envirotech, surface and subsurface conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project research, Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report. 1.1 Project Description Information pertaining to the Project was provided by the owner of the Project. The property consists of approximately 6.3 acres of land, and will minimally consist of developing a single family residence, smaller shop/ dwelling unit, septic system, driveway, and other ancillary features. Prior to development, selective deforesting of approximately 4.7 acres of the property is proposed for this Project. Currently, the land is vacant with a network of existing decommissioned 10 feet to 20 feet wide logging roads. This road begins at State Highway 302 near the northwest corner of the parcel, and extends in a south by southeast direction before switching back to a northerly direction. Another road branches off just beyond the switch-back. A septic system or water well have not yet been designed or approved by the prevailing government office. The house is anticipated to be two-story, predominantly wood frame with concrete stem walls. The final design may consist of a daylight basement. Building footprints and deforesting limits with relation to site features are illustrated in the Site Map in Appendix A. Envirotech Engineering Gcotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason C01111 l'. Wilshinglon T 4 1.2 Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the Project in order to provide geotechnical recommendations relating to the construction of the planned single family residence and deforesting activities. The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions, and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site development. 1.3 Scope of Work In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the proposed improvements of the Project include: • Review project information provided by the Project owner/developer; • Conduct a site visit to document and photograph the site conditions that may influence the construction and performance of the proposed improvements, • Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing an existing cut along the driveway/ decommissioned logging road located within the Project, probing below the surface near the planned building footprints, and review well logs from existing wells near the Project; • Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations; • Perform soils testing to determine selected index properties of the soils that includes 6 visual classifications; • Complete an engineering analysis supported by planned site alterations, and the surface and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation and soil testing; and, • Establish conclusions based on findings, and make recommendations for foundations, slope stability, erosion control, earthwork construction requirements, limits of deforesting and other considerations. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-937=1 Page 2 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax. 360-27�4789 Mason Count). Washington e 2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on June 9, June 16, and October 4, 2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site visits, the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed, photographs were taken of the surface and surrounding areas, site features were documented that may influence construction, soil samples were collected from selected locations, and near-surface soils were visually classified. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general observations, topography, vegetation, and drainage for the Project and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. 2.1 General Observations The Project is currently undeveloped vacant land with an existing decommissioned logging road as previously discussed in the Introduction Section. No recent clearing of vegetation. was apparent on the property. The Project consisted of moderate to highly dense vegetation, including cedars, firs, alders, ferns, grasses, blackberries, and other trees and shrubbery common to the Northwest. Beyond the property lines, vacant land exists immediately to the east, with sparse development to the north and south. The State Highway 302 right-of-way (ROW) with associated drainage and paved roadway exists adjacent to the west, with single family development beyond. Observations of surface conditions, other than what is presented in this section, can be found in the Slope Stability and Erosion Control Section of this report. 2.2 Topography The Project is situated within moderate to steep sloping terrain. Site grades are moderately sloped at 27% where development and the majority of logging is expected to take place. Steep descending slopes of up to approximately 60% are located on the southeast portion of property, with a vertical relief of approximately 56 feet. See the Site Map in Appendix A for an illustration of the general topography with respect to the planned development. 2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology Ascending slopes near the northeast property corner are approximately 15%. There are no water bodies or apparent wetlands located upslope from the proposed development. Envirolech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 3 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4799 Mason CountA'. Washingion 2.3 Drainage Stormwater runoff originating a slo a from anticipated building locations are expected to be moderate due to the existing topography. Drainage within most of the property limits appears to sheet flow in a westerly direction, with an exception near the descending 60% slope. Watershed from this slope basically sheet flows in a southeast direction to the bottom of an adjacent ravine. All stormwater originating from this property is expected to be intercepted by the above mentioned ravine or drainage facilities in the State ROW. Ultimately, excess water from this property is conveyed less than '/s mile to the west before emptying into North Bay of the Case Inlet. During the site visit, running surface water was not present within 300 feet of the planned building locations. Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage problems were not observed at or near the Project. Overall, the earth near the Project surface consists of moderate permeable soils that is an engineering property relating to average groundwater drainage. 2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations Steep and moderate slopes that exist on-site signal a potential landslide or erosion hazard area. Indications of past landslides, current unstable slopes, deep-seated slope problems, or surficial slope failures were not observed. Some of the indicators may include: • Outwash of sediments near the bottom of the slope, • Fissures, tension cracks or naturally stepped land masses on the face or top of the slope, and parallel to the slope, • Fine, saturated subsurface soils, • Old landslide debris, • Significant bowing or leaning trees, or, • Slope sloughing or calving. Emirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 4 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fay: 360-2754789 Mason Countti. Washington 4 i e 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on June 9, and June 16, and October 4, 2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field methods, sampling, field testing, subsurface conditions, and results from soil testing are presented in this section of the report. 3.1 Field Methods Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by observing an excavated cut adjacent to the existing road/ driveway extending to depths of up to approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Additional information on subsurface conditions was collected by field testing, shallow probing to depths of up to 3.5 feet below ground surface near the expected building pad area, reviewing well logs originating from the subject property and/ or nearby properties, and general slope stability maps published for the surrounding areas of the Project. Appendix B has pertinent information on subsurface conditions for the Project that includes two test pit logs, two well logs, and a conservative soil cross-section representing relative soil conditions based on the accumulation of subsurface information. 3.2 Field Sampling One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface near anticipated building locations. The soil sample collected was secured and transported for possible laboratory testing. 3.3 Field Testing Relative density of the in-situ soils were acquired by recording the resistance from driving a '/2" steel bar into the site soils. These results generally indicated loose to medium dense soils in the upper 3-foot stratification. Medium dense soils were tested at 3 feet below the ground surface near the planned building location. Dense to very dense soils and weathered rock were identified at depths of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface near the west end of the Project. Envirotech Engineering Gcotcchnical Investigation Ph. 360-27�-937.1 Page 5 of22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fay: 360-27i-1799 Mason County. Washington L 3.4 Subsurface Conditions The following subsurface conditions is a general description of the Project subgrade utilizing specific information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and researched locations. The Project is composed of native soils, with no indications of borrowed fill. For engineering purposes, these native soils consist of distinguishable layers, as presented below. General Geologic Conditions - In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster, 2002 indicates Lower Tertiary (Oligocene- Paleocene), IT,. Lower tertiary are generally sedimentary rocks, and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This project is located within the, Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation." as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial sedimentary rocks were formed from shales, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the Quaternary period, the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets, with the most recent being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat, the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits. Soils within the upper 12 inches contain root structures with significant organic composition and soil mixture. The soils below the upper organic/ soil mixture to depths ranging from 4 feet to approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface was observed to consist primarily of a brown silty sand with gravel (SM). Gravels are primarily fine and sub angular near the roadway, and well-graded near the proposed building footprint. The sand content is mostly well-graded, and the fines content is primarily a silt with none to very low plasticity. These soils were observed and tested to be loose to medium dense. These soils exhibited very low moisture near planned building footprints, and very moist to wet near west property line. The soils below the aforementioned silty sand with gravel layer consisted mostly of a medium dense to dense, brown, very moist silty sand (SM) with few gravels. This layer of soils was observed to be approximately 3 feet thick near the west property line. The sand was primarily well-graded, and fines are a silt with low plasticity. Some small pockets of silty clay with low to medium plasticity, sand/gravel and grey fines were also observed. Dense to very dense silty sand and gravel (SM/GM) soils were observed beginning at depths of 7 feet below the existing ground surface. From water well reports, these soils are expected to extend to depths over 100 feet below the ground surface. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical lnvesligation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 6 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason COUnt\. Washington 3.4.1 Groundwater From the water well reports, permanent groundwater is expected to be approximately 40 feet below the ground surface at the lowest elevation of the property. Water content at shallow depths may be substantially increased during prolonged wet weather and/ or post-development activities including on-site septic usage and infiltration facilities.. Overall, the shallow subsurface soils consist of a high to moderate permeable stratification due to the soil classification and relative density. Permeability is an engineering property relating to groundwater drainage, and is estimated to have a coefficient at or greater than 2.5 x 10-5 centimeters per second for this project. 3.5 Soils Testing The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and transported for possible laboratory testing. Visual classification of soils was performed in the field. The following soil tests were performed in accordance to the American Standards for Testing and Materials(ASTM): • 6 Visual Classifications (ASTM D2488) 3.5.1 Visual Classification The general results from the visual classification are presented in the aforementioned Subsurface Conditions Section from depths of up to 7 feet below the natural ground surface. Specifically, soils within the upper 4 to 6 feet consisted of approximately 15% gravel, 60% sand-sized soils, and 25% silt. Underlying soils were estimated to be 15% gravel, 40% sand and 45% silt. Minor variations observed during the visual classification of particle size content (i.e. gravel, sand, fines), or isolated pockets within the soil stratification were insignificant in relation to the overall engineering properties of the soil. Envirotcch Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. i00-275-9,71 Page 7 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 60-275-1789 Mason C0111111. Washington 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards, earthquake hazards, and general soil mechanics. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, of Mason County, Washington, the Project is within two zones regarding potential landslide activity. These zones are designated Stable and Intermediate. Stable slopes are generally not prone to landslides due to small grades and accommodating geology. Historically, intermediate terrains have no known landslides. However, these sites are considered inherently hazardous due to the steep grades. Upon a more detailed analysis as presented in the Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section of this report, the slopes within and near the expected developed Project will need proper mitigation and possible maintenance in order to assure stability. This is based on observations during the surface investigation, and an engineering analysis of the slopes using expected subsurface conditions and anticipated site development as presented in this report. Mitigation and maintenance measures to be implemented are provided herein. The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. The soils on-site have high frost susceptible characteristics and should be used only to the extents provided in this report. The planned site development will be on moderate slopes, and near high sloping terrain coupled with timber harvesting. Proper drainage provisions shall be implemented where practical, including the recommendations provided in order to reduce the potential for damaging erosion or landslide activity. From a geotechnical position, off-site impacts due to the expected development of this Project are not anticipated if the recommendations in this report are adhered to. Sedimentation control should be adequate when utilizing the erosion control recommendations as presented herein together with implementing appropriate erosion controls with the degree of care as expected from a licensed contractor. ) nvirolech Engineering Geoiechnical Investigation Ph. 360-27>-9374 Page 8 of22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County. Washinglon 5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present engineering analysis and recommendations for the proposed improvements of the Project. These recommendations have been made available based on the planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report; general observations of drainage and topography as summarized in the Surface Conditions Section; and, soil conditions that were identified by the field investigation and soils testing in the Subsurface Investigation Section. Engineering analysis and recommendations for the Project that is provided herein, includes pertinent information for foundations, settlement, slope stability, earthwork construction, lateral earth pressures, footing setbacks, surface and subsurface drainage, and erosion control. 5.1 Building Foundation Recommendations Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a two- story, single family residential structure and other detached structures. Below the upper 12 inches of native soil within the Project, there is apparently two distinguishable layers of soil that will influence the bearing capacity and settlement of the structures. The recommended allowable bearing capacities and settlements as presented below, consider the probable type of construction as well as the field investigation results by implementing practical engineering judgment within published engineering standards. Evaluations include classifying site soils, and deriving probable relative densities, unit weights and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils based on observed field conditions and soil testing for this Project. 5.1.1 Bearing Capacity For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase with depth. Existing in-situ soils at the Project site indicates that the structure can be established on shallow, continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively undisturbed native soil. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. Footing width and depth recommendations shall be adhered to, and are based on a 2000 pounds per square feet (psf) maximum structural bearing pressure. For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 2000 psf, a minimum footing width of 15 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. A qualified engineer shall assess the bearing strata prior to commencing foundation construction. Additional foundation depth may be required based on observed soil conditions during the foundation excavation. See Envirotech Engineering Geolechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 9 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Count.. washington the Earthwork Construction Recommendations below. These recommendations are made available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this report. 5.1.2 Settlement Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances, the infiltration of free moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, and construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential settlement of 0.75 inch. 5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Stem walls may be planned for structural lower levels, which in some degree, will function as retaining walls. The lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges, hydrostatic pressures, earthquake pressures, and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. Lateral earth pressures are anticipated to be at-rest for the anticipated rigid concrete stem wall construction. Retaining walls should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for backfill consisting of engineered fill. See the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section for details concerning engineered fill and placement of backfill. Lateral earth pressure recommendations are based on retaining structures retaining no more than 4 feet of soils, relatively flat or descending sloping backfill, and the backfill conforming to the recommendations outlined in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations Section of this report. For this Project, it may be necessary to retain more than 4 feet of soil. For this Project, additional design parameters must be accounted for in the retaining wall analysis for retention of greater than 4 feet of backfill. These recommendations should only be provided by a qualified engineer after the type of backfill is acquired, inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the final wall height is determined. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 10 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Count. washington 5.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations Founding material for building foundations shall consist of compacted engineered fill over undisturbed native soils or re-compacted native soils. The following earthwork construction recommendations include excavations, subgrade preparation, type of fill, and placement of fill. The earthwork construction recommendations as presented herein, pertain to all planned buildings for this Project. 5.3.1 Excavation Excavation is recommended to achieve appropriate foundation depth, and to p remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious material, if present, beneath foundations. Additional sub-excavation will be required for this Project if the soils below the recommended 4 feet are loose, saturated, or otherwise incompetent. The foundation excavation should be inspected for compliance by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional. All soils below the bottom of the excavation shall be relatively undisturbed or properly compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed, re-compaction of these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. 5.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill For engineered fill or disturbed native soils that will be utilized as fill material directly beneath foundations or founding engineered fill, the following placement and compaction requirements are necessary. Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Engineered fill should consist of at least 65% gravel-sized material, and less than 5% fines(particles passing#200 sieve)by weight. Compaction of these materials shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 6 inches and 12 inches for native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D 1557) and within 3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding. For compacted or re-compacted fill beneath foundations, the limits of compacted fill should extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate of one foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See Emvirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph 360-275-9,74 Page l 1 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason COnnh. Washington r the illustration below. FOOTING COMPACTED NATIVE SOILS OR ENGINEERED I FILL 1 I I—II II UNI]ISTURBED SUBGRA>)E 5.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill Native soils should not be used as backfill material for this site. Backfill should consist of engineered fill or borrow materials approved by a geotechnical engineer. Compaction of retaining wall backfill shall be achieved in compacted lifts of about 12 to 24 inches. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to no more than 85% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Over-compaction should be prevented since this will cause lateral earth pressures to increase, which may be detrimental to the retaining structure. If clean, coarse gravel soils are utilized as engineered fill, compaction may be achieved from a sufficiently experienced earthwork contractor by reasonably densifying granular soils with construction equipment. Backfill for the retaining wall should extend vertically from the top of the footing to the proposed ground surface. At the ground surface, backfill should extend horizontally from the face of the retaining wall to at least 2 feet in back of the wall. Perforated drains for retaining walls should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches and direct water as recommended in the Surface and Subsurface Drainage Section of this report. Coarse, clean gravel is recommended to be placed at least 12 inches around the drain pipe in order to provide increased drainage capabilities. Non- woven geotextile filter fabric should be wrapped around the aforementioned coarse gravel for reducing the potential of silt migration and clogging of the drain pipe. See the illustration below. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 12 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Count). Washington 2 FT MIN WATER PROOFING BACKFILL 4 FT MAX NON—WOVEN GEOTEXTILE DRAIN ROCK 6 IN MIN 4 IN DIA. PERFORATED PIPE �-- 6 IN MIN 5.3.4 Wet Weather Due to the types of subsurface soils, additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating the soils within excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a moist and dense/ hard characteristic as presented in this report to muck or soft, saturated conditions, then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, or these soils should be completely removed and replaced with suitable compacted material as presented in this section. 5.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control Landslides are natural geologic processes, and structures near slopes possess an inherent risk of adverse settlement, sliding or structural damage due to these processes. These risks cannot be eliminated for any site with sloping grades because gravity is constantly inducing strain on the soil mass. Geotechnical engineering provides an acceptable factor of safety for developing on or near sloping terrain. These factor of safeties are based on engineering standards such as defining engineering properties of the soil, topography, water conditions and surcharges. Surface sloughing,or other types of surficial slope movements usually do not affect the deep-seated structural capability of the slope. However, excessive and/or repeated surficial slope movements, if not repaired, may represent a threat to the structural integrity of the slope. With appropriate drainage and erosion control provisions for this Project during and after construction, it is unlikely that this Project will experience excessive surficial movements. However, maintenance of the slope must be completed if the situation does arise in order to prevent the possibility of further surficial or deep seated slope movements that may be damaging to life and property. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical 1m-estigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 13 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fav 360-275-4799 Mason Count.. washingion Building pads are expected to be on or near moderate sloping terrain with nearly 30% descending grades. Additionally, buildings will be over 50 feet away from the top of steeper 60% slopes. The proposed timber harvesting could compromise Project slopes, and recommendations are provided in this report for suitable mitigation. By removing trees, the root strength is decreased over time, thereby lowering the `apparent' cohesion of the soil. Transpiration is decreased, which results in additional groundwater, increased pore water pressure and less cohesion/friction of the soil particles. Stormwater runoff also increases, and less plants will cause less absorption of the force from rain, thereby creating the potential for erosion hazards. These hazards shall be controlled by implementing erosion control, vegetation and drainage facilities as presented in this report. The Simplified Bishop Method, utilizing a spreadsheet program iterative approach, was used to analyze the static stability of the site slopes. Various radii's and center points of the circle were selected until the lowest factor of safety was found. Center points and radii's were carefully chosen to exploit the weakest points of possible slip planes. In addition, conservative values were used in the slope stability analysis in regards to topography, surcharges, water content, and cohesion of the site soils. Seismic conditions were estimated utilizing worst case scenario values from the static analysis, a horizontal acceleration coefficient of at least 0.15, and applying the applicable values to slope stability charts. These stability charts were presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in the "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering," April 2002. Anticipated building loads, building pad cuts, or impacts from septic drainfields are not expected to have any detrimental influence on the global stability of the slopes, provided that the setback requirements, drainage and all other recommendations in this report are adhered to. Based on the aforementioned Project criteria, observations, slope stability analysis, and the recommendations in this report, the Project has an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.5 relative to deep-seated, static slope failures. Furthermore, an acceptable factor of safety of over 1.1 for seismic conditions was also concluded for this Project. Specifically, the lowest static and seismic factor of safeties were estimated to be 1.9 and 1.2, respectively. Soil and other site parameter input values, and output results for the slope stability analysis for both static and seismic conditions are provided in Appendix E of this report. 5.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts The approximate location of the anticipated septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report. The drainfield should be within the general vicinity of the indicated location. Specifically, the drainfield should be located Envirotech Engineering Gcotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 14of22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Count}. Washington 9 downslope of the proposed structures within the south half of the property. The anticipated drainfield is not expected to adversely influence the slope stability for the planned building structures or critical slopes for this Project. This conclusion is based on the septic location, topography, drainage recommendations presented in this report, and a slope stability analysis accounting for saturation in the upper soils. 5.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks Anticipated surcharges from anticipated or possible planned site developments were used in the slope stability analysis. A worst-case scenerio was used for the steep slopes on the southeast portion of the Project and the moderate 30% slopes on the rest of the property. Provided that assumptions relating to construction occur and recommendations are followed as presented in this report, the factor of safety for slope stability is sufficient for the following footing setback. • A minimum horizontal setback of 50 feet must be maintained between the bottom and outside edge of the structural footing to the face of the steep descending slopes of approximately 60%. See the figure below and the Geologic Map in Appendix F for additional illustration. STRUCI RE TOP OF SLOE SLR FACE IHI�• —11 �-- 50 FT MIN---� '— FMTM There are no minimum building setback requirements to the adjacent 30% slope grades. 5.4.3 Erosion Control Erosion control measures may or may not be required during the logging phase of this Project, depending on the amount of ground disturbance. Erosion control is required during construction due to excessive disturbing of the topography that may cause sediment loss from wind-borne silts during dry weather, surface runoff during wet weather or tracking sediments off-site with construction equipment. Erosion control during construction should include minimizing the removal of vegetation and ground disturbance to the least extent possible. Erosion control measures during construction may include stockpiling cleared vegetation, Envirolech Engineering Gcolechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 15 of22 Parcel No 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4799 Mason COUnI). W)Sliiugton temporary retention areas, silt fencing, intercepting swales, berms, straw bales, plastic cover or other standard controls. Any erosion control should be located down-slope and beyond the limits of construction and clearing of vegetation where surface water is expected to flow. If the loss of sediments appear to be greater than expected, or erosion control measures are not functioning as needed, additional measures must be implemented immediately. For this Project, silt fences are preferred. See Appendix C for sketches and notes regarding selected erosion control measures. Permanent erosion control is necessary and should be completed after construction. Since site development will be completed in phases, permanent erosion control may be needed immediately after timber harvesting, and again after building construction. This may include promoting the growth of vegetation within the exposed areas by mulching, seeding or an equivalent measure. Depending on rainfall, exposed areas may require immediate protection such as plastic cover or riprap. It is recommended to provide outlet protection for all drainage facilities when necessary, and cover driveways with surface gravel as recommended in the Driveway Recommendations of this report. General notes pertaining to permanent erosion are provided in Appendix C. Additional erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, drainage structures and/or features. Erosion control details and specifications may be found in the current"Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 5.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned residential buildings. Surface and subsurface drains should be adequately maintained during the life of the structure. Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from the Project structures. Both footing perimeter drains and roof drains are required for this Project. Subsurface water intercepted in the footing perimeter drains, and. stormwater collected from roof drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration area away from buildings. An appropriate infiltration area includes the area near the southwest property corner. See the Site Map in Appendix A for recommended infiltration locations. Outlet protection is required for all outlets located on the ground surface. General drainage details are provided in Appendix D. If drainage problems occur during or after construction, additional water mitigation will be required. This may include a combination of swales, berms, drain Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 16 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fav 360-275-4789 Mason CounIN. Washington pipes, check dams or outlet protection in order to divert water away from the structures and remove excess water from the slopes. 5.4.5 Vegetation Considerations Vegetation is an excellent measure to minimize surficial slope movements and erosion on slope faces and exposed surfaces. As previously mentioned, existing surface conditions at the Project site appear to be sufficiently resistant to erosion hazards. Site development will require land disturbance and the removal of vegetation. Envirotech recommends to minimize removal of vegetation during and after construction and comply with the timber harvesting recommendations below. Vegetation that should not be disturbed is shown on the Site Map in Appendix A. Selected vegetation may be removed within the 50-foot buffer as shown on the Site Map. However, vegetation should only be removed in this area in accordance with the more stringent Timber Harvesting recommendations in this report. Complete vegetation removal is permitted in building, septic and driveway areas only. Stumps and roots shall remain in place where selected trees are to be removed, and the underbrush shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. In addition, any tree may be removed if it poses a threat to life and property. 5.5 Earthquakes and Liquefaction Potential Soils for this Project are primarily Type D, corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. For this region, the seismic zone is 3, which yields a maximum ground acceleration of 0.33g. There are no known faults directly beneath this Project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this property is the Tacoma Fault Zone, which is approximately 1 mile from the Project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. The potential for liquefaction and other earthquake induced hazards are believed to be very low for this Project. This is based on subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems caused by seismic events include submerged, poorly-graded granular soils within the upper 50 feet of soils. Although gravel- and silt- sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically subjected to these types of seismic hazards. Significant sand stratifications that are submerged are not anticipated to be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoils for this Project. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph, 360-275-9374 Page 17 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason CountN. Washington 5.6 Driveway Considerations Considerations for the planned single family residence ingress/ egress includes access from the State Highway. An existing driveway, apparently an old logging road, is.indicated on the Site Map in the appendix. The driveway is proposed to consist of a gravel surface. The following recommendations are provided as guidelines for constructing a durable gravel surfaced driveway for this Project. The structural section of the proposed gravel surfaced driveway was designed based on the USACE technical manual 5-822-12, titled "Design of Aggregate Surfaced Roads and Airfields." The structural section shall consist of • 4"surface course, over • Prepared native subgrade or structural fill The design method chosen, utilizes various inputs, including traffic and materials, to derive at satisfactory and serviceability for a roadway structural section. Basic design inputs for calculating the surface course thickness and other design parameters include ADT, Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL), selected soil properties of the structural section, and properties of the subgrade soils. Specifically, the design inputs used for this analysis is included in the following table: Input Design Initial 0/day Undeveloped property ADT I O/day Trip generation estimate for 1 developed property % Trucks 2% Assumed value Design 25 yrs Design value for this analysis method % Growth 0.0% Assumed value Surface 4" thick Minimum value based on USACE method. Table 1 Design Input Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 19 of'22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4799 Mason Count}. Washington Based on the design inputs for the planned gravel surfaced roadway, the entire structural section of the roadway is only 4 inches thick over competent soils. This structural section should be composed entirely of surface course material consisting of angular, well- or poorly-graded gravel (GW or GP) overlying prepared subgrade or compacted engineered fill. In addition, the surface course material should contain less than 10% fines (material passing the #200 standard sieve), and have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of at least 17. Virtually all competent GW and GP material have CSR's greater than 30. These design requirements are illustrated in the following two tables: US Standard Sieve Percent Finer Y 100 No. 4 0-20 No.200 0-10 Table 2 Gradation Requirements for Surface Course Property Surface Course CBR 17 min Plastic Index 6 max. Particle Angularity Angular Table 3 Property Requirements for Surface Course Alternatively, surface course material conforming to Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT) standards may also be used for this Project. Prior to driveway construction, removal of the top soil and excessive organic material is necessary. If engineered fill is utilized for this Project, it should meet the engineered fill materials and compaction requirements as presented in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations of this Report. Native subgrades beneath the removed top soil and beneath anticipated engineered fill or surface coarse material shall be compacted to a Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph. 360-27;-9374 Page 19 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax. 360-275-4789 Mason CountN. Washington depth of at least 12 inches per the recommendations for native soils in the Earthwork Construction Recommendations of this Report Additional surface course material is optional, however, additional material may reduce future maintenance responsibilities by hindering the migration of fines to the surface of the roadway. Over time these fine soils accumulated within the voids of the coarse material and reach the road surface where they are easily transported by traffic, wind or stormwater. The removal of fines creates pot holes and a condition for free standing water which may soften the subgrade. The accumulation of fine soils within the surface course exacerbates the freeze/ thaw effect and increases the rate of sedimentation. Periodic maintenance is required for all gravel surfaced roadways, and should be maintained when necessary. 5.7 Timber Harvesting Recommendations It is understood that timber harvesting shall be completed prior to any other site development activities. The Site Map in Appendix A indicates 3 different boundaries regarding the logging of this Project. This includes areas where timber harvesting should not occur, areas of intermediate selective harvesting, and areas of selective harvesting. The following information provides details on the type of recommended harvesting, provisions for areas not to be harvested, and general logging methods. The areas that should not be logged, as shown on the Site Map in Appendix A, extends from the top of the 60% slopes, down to the creek, and beyond to the property lines. This area shall be protected from disturbance, deforesting or site development activities of any sort. The intermediate selective harvesting areas, as presented on the Site Map in Appendix A, extends from the top of the 60% slopes to 50 feet northwest of the top of this slope. The selective harvesting shall include partial cutting by leaving all trees with a breast height diameter of less than 4 inches, and all trees with a breast height diameter of greater than 20 inches in place and undisturbed. All trees less than 4 inches in diameter, trees greater than 20 inches in diameter, underbrush, stumps from harvested trees, roots and ground shall be minimally disturbed. The selective harvesting areas, as shown on the Site Map, includes all areas within the property except the areas not to be logged or the area of intermediate selective harvesting. The selective harvesting shall include partial cutting by leaving all trees with a breast height diameter of less than 4 inches in place and undisturbed. All trees less than 4 inches in diameter, underbrush, stumps from harvested trees, ground and roots shall be minimally disturbed. En irotech Engineering Geotechnical Investigation Ph, 360-275-9374 Page 20 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason colllltN. Washington The old logging access and skid trails existing on-site shall be utilized as much as possible. Conventional equipment such as skidders and crawlers may be used for this Project, although wheels are preferred over tracks in order to reduce ground disturbance. Logs shall be elevated on one end when dragging across the Project, although dragging should be minimized as much as possible for this site. Timber harvesting causes a disturbance of a complex interaction between water, soil and vegetation. Recommendations in this report are provided as a cost efficient way to alleviate problems that may arise from this disturbance. Young trees should be monitored and protected from competing vegetation. Permanent erosion control, drainage facilities and slopes shall be immediately maintained, if necessary. Some conditions that may need immediate attention includes excessive erosion, scour, sloughing, significant changes to drainage patterns, new springs, new seepages or isolated areas of ground saturation. Maintenance may include curtain drains, swales, other drainage facilities, or slope remediation such as reinforcement, retaining structures or surface protection. Envirotech Engineering Geolechnical Investigation Pli. 360-275-9374 Page 21 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-62-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Counl�. Washinglon 6.0 LIlVIITATIONS Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during construction are different than those described in this report. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified engineer observes and documents the construction, or Envirotech is promptly notified if project and subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations. This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or owners' representative, and project described herein. This report should not be used to dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility. Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid on compliance with all recommendations provided in this report. The recommendations provided in this report are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report. Changes to the site other than the expected development, changes to ordinances or regulatory codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering M_V4L Michael Staten, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical investigation Ph. 360-275-9 374 Page 22 of 22 Parcel No. 1221-02-100001 Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason Count. Washingion Feb 05 08 05:42p Pamela Werdall 360-277-0470 p.2 0:�✓ 74 NE Hurd Road, Belfair, WA 98528 February 1,2008 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Geotechnical Letter for parcel Number 1222162 100001, 2501 State Route 302 Mason County,Washington F virotech Engineering (Fnvootech) completed a geotecbmcal report titled, "Geotechnical Report for Werdall Logging and Single Family Residence," dated October 18,2007. This report recommended selective harvesting for much of the property. --- Tire-wetland-Corps 1r -`��Verdall Habitat ia'r 'a.,o,.,o.,� this property,— — --and recommended to create two snag trees for potential nesting and roosting habitat in the intermediate selective harvesting area Converting two mature trees into snags as recommended by the Wetland Corps will nut be significantly deftimental to the sty of on-site slopes. Specifically, it is my opinion that creating two snag trees in the locations I delineated by the Wetland Corps will not create additional hazards to the proposed ` residence or off-site residences. This is based on the adherence of the remaining recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report. I Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, I Emrirotech Engineering P�~CLYD!6 ST GN% WAS 4T 43045 �0ie FSS10T��AL CZyG EXPIRES JAN 10,2009 Michael Staten,P-E. Geotechnical Engineer OFFICE: 360-275-9374 CELL-36"89-6045 FAX 360-275-4789 EMAIL: envirotech@?geotechnicatinto.com Ewvirotech Evvg-tmen% q ceotechv�toal° Ev,,vtroK*vtewtal o Dralwage Roadway April 29, 2010 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 for Werdall Logging and Single Family Residence INTORDUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geotechnical report addendum #1 for the above referenced project located at 2501 State Route 302 (Parcel 12221 62 10001) in Mason County, Washington. The original report, dated October 18, 2007, was prepared by Envirotech(Project #0727). This addendum was prepared in order to provide additional information with relation to the Project and the aforementioned geotechnical report. The following sections include Project Information; Septic Considerations; Drainage and Vegetation Recommendations; and, Conclusions. PROJECT INFORMATION Since the original report was composed, the property has been logged, the driveway has been established, general building footprints have been located, the specific septic drainfield location has been determined, and the site has been stabilized with plantings, rock, and other controls. The development of this Project is similar to the original concept, accept the septic drainfield has been substantially re-located. SEPTIC CONSIDERATIONS It is our opinion that the revised location of the proposed septic drainfield is acceptable. See Attachment A of this addendum for a depiction of this proposed location. This determination is based, on part, site observations after the site has been cleared, the immediate downslope grades from the new septic location, and the deep medium to high permeable soils located within the vicinity of the drainfield. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 2 Werdall Logging and SFR Fax 360-275-4789 Parcel 1222162 10001 April 29, 2010 DRAINAGE AND VEGETATION Infiltration trenches for roof runoff as depicted in the stormwater management plan should be utilized. However, the infiltration trenches should extend greater distances along the contours as much as possible. This is opposed to a more direct point source of infiltration as previously recommended. In addition, infiltration trenches for general surface runoff should be eliminated for this site. A combination of existing vegetative flow paths, rock check dams, and channel lining are sufficient runoff controls for this project. All new plantings and volunteer plants since the logging has occurred must be maintained for this project. This is essential for the long-time erosion control and slope stability of the site. Any unhealthy or dead trees must be immediately replaced with one of similar size. CONSLUSION Envirotech is pleased to submit this geotechnical addendum for the Werdall logging and single family residence. This addendum provided additional information, conclusions and recommendations concerning the project. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Best Regards, Envirotech Engineering 01 CLYDF S G �F WASI�j�rI Z9�/0 0¢ 43045 Q �� �FGISTIV: �Sr�CNALE�G`� Michael Staten, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Report Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 2 Werdall Logging and SFR Fax 360-2754789 Parcel 1222162 10001 April 29, 2010 ATTACHMENTS 1. SITE MAP O o O A O p SCALE, 1 INCH = 80 FEET TOP OF 35X SLOPE EXISTI NG PAVED DRIVE Ay APPROACH S88' '9' 39' E 678.74' 0 20 40 80 Y V PROPOSED PRIMARY I e AND RESERVE SEPTIC DRAINFIELD AREA (SEE DRAINFIELD DETAILS) I PROPOSED 1000 GAL W� d���' ,�� ROOF INFILTRATION LIMITS PUMP TANK (o T � T i 30, 30' PROPOSED 1200 GAL ROW Rpy SEPTIC TANK / , No PROPOSED II P 1 BE �O�M n _ PRO a i I SECONDARY UNIT i m ccl EXISTING GRAVED ! (APPROXIMATE LOC TION) 9 '^ (j SURFACED DRIVEWAY ❑ - <APPRX) % -I m No D v d i ROOF INFILTRATION LIMITS 1 PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE ' ' (APPROXIMATE LOCAT ) wFc- D TOP OF'60%+ SLOPE � ROOF INFILTRATION S MAINTAIN 50'+ SETBACK PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. S88'15'00'E 697.89' _ PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, I WERDALL GEGTECHNICAL �� REPORT ADDENDUM #1 PA EASE11-� 1� \ 1 C- Aa a ` ALA A OV MvEWW G� JEFF AND PAM WERDALL PARCEL 12221 62 10001 I '\n� U ME IN SAnT 7C�� MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON W 1Y 17_9� I V ' 1 ENGINEER, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 SITE PLAN r 'r ceotechv�LcAI EvLvLrovwuewtAt°ArALwAae°R-0 01 February 8, 2011 ; Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair,Washington 98528 Reference: Drainage Addendum#1 for Werdall Single Family Residence Located at 2501 Highway 302, Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs.Werdall, Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this drainage addendum for the referenced property. The original drainage plan was composed by Envirotech on May 5, 2008. This addendum is in response to conforming to the minimum requirements of the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements Clearing and easement limits should be clearly delineated prior to installing erosion and sediment control facilities. This practice facilitates and minimizes temporary erosion controls within proper locations. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized according to the design plans. This includes temporary stabilization,when necessary, and permanent erosion control. Stabilization of temporary conveyances, if constructed, are required per the design plans. Storm drain inlets, if located on or off-site, must be protected until the project is completely stabilized. This may be accomplished with hay bales,silt fencing, catch basin inserts, or other approved control. The nature of this Project should not require significant de-watering or underground utility construction. If significant de-watering or underground utility construction is necessary, then these occasions will require downstream erosion and sediment control features. This may include silt fencing, interceptor swales, or other appropriate erosion control. Utility trenches should be opened for no more than 5 days. Drainage Natural drainage patterns are to be maintained to the maximum extents practicable. Off-site analysis and/ or mitigation is not deemed necessary for this Project. This is based on the scale of the proposed Project, and the expected low impact to downstream properties. An operation and maintenance covenant will be required to cover all stonnwater facilities. See inspection and maintenance procedures below. Performance bonding, or other appropriate instrument, shall be �o gox984 Betfatr, wash Lv,,atov.92522 Off: 360-275-9374 Celt: 360-689-6045 Fax: 360-2y'5-4789 ewvi.rotech@aeotech vu.calLvi.fo.cona I� required for this project to ensure compliance with the standards presented in this report. Inspection and maintenance of all drainage facilities shall ultimately be the responsibility of the following owners: Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair,Washington 98528 The following stormwater management facilities and permanent erosion controls includes provisions for inspection procedures and necessary maintenance: Permanent Vegetation Permanent vegetation within the drainage Swale shall be inspected regularly to insure establishment and healthy growth. Vegetation shall be re-established, where necessary. Vegetation may need to be periodically fertilized for continuous growth. Fertilization shall be applied per manufacturers recommendations. Drain Pipes Drain pipes, including roof gutters should be inspected 3 times per year, and cleaned as necessary. Overflowing gutters or catch basins are an indication of drain pipe or gutter clogging. Drain pipes that become separated from the catch basins shall be repaired immediately. Check Dams Check dams are located at engineered intervals within the roadside drainage swales. Dams should be inspected at least 4 times per year. Sediment accumulation should be removed when it reaches '/2 of the original dam height, or before. Rock shall be restored per the original design Infiltration Trenches Date of enepeetiom: Inspector: Mainlenanoe Chec W for Infiltration Trnnches Pofinition:A rock tied traneh that cokcts sfartriwaW and allows the water to soak kito the sell.This infiltration process helps redmv"groundwater. Often roof downspouts are piped directly to an irdI ation trench Frequency Condli on to Check Resufts Expected After Fx Mainbnwrce Performed t Each large Storm in 11 yr Check obsematior well Io If trerv�h is rot drained within insue fret the kerrch is not 48 firs of the end of a storm. 2- Monthly(Oct-May) salurxled for more kern 48 contact design engineer to houK ettef a dorm determine if trench needs 3 Quarterly(fit-Sept) repar,relocation,or extension. Pre Settling Device should All sediment snowed and pre also be checked fa settling device retuned to accumulation of sedwwnl ongnal condition Page 2of 5 Catch Basins #5-Ma rtenance Chetklist for Catch Basing Ckaina = ern Conn sorts to Cnc lr Fa ;ondh,-s That Shottld ge System .r v v v Exist .eature seneral 'C-np-c pollutant' Ster*:il cr ramp should be b'ia-n^g syrs!e.g., Ste^_11 0•Sttamp not v sibte and easily read 'D.mp No Wave-C-a-s-.o v sibie Steam')shall-.:paintec of embossed on 3r adjiaoent to all storm drain inlets. -it nera -ras-& Tram or cews,#hizh is Iota;e: U3:,ash or debris located Jeb:= immediately in front of the:a::h m^-*dia:ely in front of casin opening or is blocking catch basin or on graze nle Ling capaeirr df-ne bas.b1 opening. more than IC'6 Tras-& Trav or cevs:n t-e basin; No:rash or debris in the =reb that exceeds 55 percent of the catch basin. sump depth as me3sw d from 'he acttom of zasin-.a -vent of :he owes,pipe intcor cut c'the :asin,but in nc case less than a minimum.of six inches cleaance from the debris surface to:he -vent of t^ owes pipe rav& Trasr,or ae1 s -any inlet or Inlet and cutlet eipes free Debris owlet pipe blocking more than 0f aas�Or ceta-S. 3 of:s heirlht. 3c-n4ra Trash& Dead animals or vepeta:ion that 143 cead animals cr Debris could generate odors that.wild vepeia:ior present evit- - cause complaints cr danper3ue :he catch basin. cases ie. .,me:hanel. 3enera Sednrorr Seciment I.in the basin)that No sediment in the exceeds 80 peron-e':he sump Basin cep:h as measured from:he z0:tcm of aasin to -vert of t^ owes.pipe into or cut c'the tasin,but in nc case less than a it nimum of B inches clearance firm the sedimen: surface to.he evert of ewes: i e. _enera Structure Damage tc Top slab ras M es arger than -op slab s iree cj _s Frarre and cr-cc2 sa,3re inztes or cracks wc- a-d cracks. Slab than 1.14 .h:Inte^t s to make sure nc material is running into Lasini. enera: Structure Damage to Frarre not sitting flush on top Frarre and or-ac• slab,Le,separation cm ore Frarre is s tting flush cn Stab than X4 nch cr';he frame from :ne riser rings cr tcp slab :he:op slab.Frame^•: and frmty attached. sea.jrel 3:rached _,enera rat ices or Cracks in Maimenance person judges that Basin repiaced or repaire ??sin Yea"s.'8c7cm s etire is unsound imcssdrstandanis. Page 3of 5 i =requenc 'm C.:--Jonst_C-iAF::- Conditcrs That Should System Exist eature venera Fra--ures or racks in --w—fillet has separa:ec or :ipe is rep•oiaed a,:' Dmn'Nalls:8cfcm :racked w._t-3-!1'2incr.and sezure at bas-Ica cnger than 1 Foot at the joint of any inle_:cu:let pipe or any widen.e of sal particles entering catch basin through :raoxs. .ienera' If fa lure of basin has vva:e9 a Basin replaced of repa•e. Misalignment safety,function,or design to ces gn standams. �cblem. er.era :ege3tcn Vegeat�cn proving 3--rosS 3^. No vegetation b'ccking :)coking acre than 1-Y4 c'the opening tc basin basin opening cnera egeatcn Vege'.aticnarorang ^ No vegetation or mot nle-cu:let pipe joints that is gm%%,Ih present. more:hart six inches all and ess than six inches apart — r,arn.^a cn an Any evideme of oil,gasoline, 3 coo mina" or 3eneral POVAcn contaminants or other pollutants Palluta^s pre=_en t. ;�„oordinate remctia!•cea^.� i with Ira!'state-quality response alenwi. catch vover No,.in Place :.over is fnissing or only w,y open va::h basin Basin ;.amity it place. requires mairnenance. .:Aver match basin corer is closed. Catch _coking Mechanism `hechanism cannc:be opene:i Mechanism opens vril` Basin vat Working try•one main:enan:e c__-son :-cper noels. Cover with proper;Dols- bolts into frame have less than 11T inch c` thread. match m :iuver CicL:q to Coe ain:enan a person Cover an be removed y Basin Remc•:a cannot remove lid after applyi-a one matmenan:e person Cover .­xrnal Ang presswe. t"ten: s Keep coverfrcm sealing c'f assess to maimenan:.e i madder _adder Rungs -sa'e adder is unsa'e due ix nssing madder pees design rungs,not securely ara:hed is standards and allows t•asin wall,misalignment,r,st. -maintenance person safe casks.or sharp edges- Woess. 3-3:es 3ra:e opening :rate wli ac-cn-;w der than :rate opening nee-; Jns 'e ?t5 nch. cesi2n standards. -.e< Tras' & Tras�and c s:hat is irate-ree c':rash and Debris Jceking mere than c' c-ris. vase surface inle:tno col ac '. s-es Da-raged or 3ra:e missing or broken 3ra:e is in place and meets `Aissin . memben:si c`Cho 9 ace. cost n standards. yor. are ur,sL.r :teethe' p--,Ablem e,fists-p ease contact a Professional Engineer. (M; Monthly from November through Aprl. (A) Once in late summer,preferable Septembeo (Si rafter any major stain(use Virch in 24 hDurs as a guide)re;. Page 4of 5 a • • • Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering CLYDE S tiG F WAS NF/�� A� p 43045 q �vQr CO� �CISTERb �� sSfONALE�G Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director Page 5of 5 �wv%rotecl� �v�,g%v�,eer%v�,r� RECEIVED ceotechw%cal+ Ewv%roww�ewtal nra%wage Roadway APR 01 20;1 March 31, 2011 MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair,Washington 98528 Reference: Drainage Addendum#2 for Werdall Single Family Residence Located at 2501 Highway 302, Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs.Werdall, Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this drainage addendum for the referenced property. The original drainage plan was composed by Envirotech on May 5, 2008. The first addendum was completed on February 8, 2011. This addendum is in response to Mason County comments relating to previous drainage designs. The accompanying two drawing sheets depict an improved site configuration with relation to the original drainage plan. Also included on these plans, are additional drainage features required for site development. A rock crib was added to the design, just downslope of the upper culvert, in order to disperse the driveway runoff over a greater area. The lower culvert has been reported to not experience flows, indicating good site percolation. The infiltration trench for roof runoff was revised, and included specific parameters to enhance slope stability and mitigate downhill seepage. This included reducing the number and width of trenches by creating much longer subsurface areas for infiltration, and specifying greater spacing between trenches. The original geotechnical report assumed saturated soils for the slope stability analysis, and therefore, infiltration has been accounted for. The northwest corner of the property experiences surface seepage, even prior to any logging activities. This is believed to originate from the property to the north because several test holes upslope on the property did not reveal subsurface flow. Due to the deep percolating soils on the property, and the significant amount of seepage near the State right-of-way, we believe this is an unordinary subsurface channeling. Envirotech believes that the induction of additional groundwater within the vicinity of the designated infiltration location will not create additional surface seepage downslope because it is not within the channelized groundwater flow. Moreover, we do not believe that new seeps will be created. Deep rooted shrubbery may be planted five to ten feet downslope from infiltration areas to help absorb excess groundwater, if necessary. Po gox,984 Selfair, washLwOtow98.522 D f f: 360-2�.5-93�4 Cell: 360-689-604.5 fax: 360-2�5-4�89 ewvlrotech@g eotech wi.ca Ilw f o.cows r� � Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering pEA,CLYDE S WAS/��N T9TF F' 3/3V I I 10 43045 <v� o� F-is Ik-SS1 NA L Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director Page 2of 2 EXISTING PAVED I ITOP OF 35% SLOPE I SCALE- I INCH 80 FEET DRIVEWAY APPROACH ` ur it 3V E GM 0 20 40 PRUPUSED PRIMARY AND RESERVE SEPTIC I DRAINFIELD AREA i f g IINFILTR TI LIoITS SASEE WW ROW / EXISTING GRAVEL SURF ED DRIVEWAY I (APPRX) XISTING m IPRA� OUTLET CULVERT y �� PROTECTION <1 \ PROPOSED 1 BE QOM m~ kISTING M �� SECONDARY UNIT g CULVERT ' (APPROXIMATE LOC TION) a ROPOSED ROCK CRIB, 20FT IN � - LENGTH, SEE N D i DETAILS 1 � d RIPRAP LINED CHANNEL PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM r \ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE I (APPROXIMATE LOCAT ) I J � WATER LINE PROPOSED W L J � d< TOP OF 60%+ SLOPE MAINTAIN 501+ SETBACK �-- PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. PRMXCT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONM WERDALL DRAINAGE PLAN ADDENDUM #2 JEFF AND PAM VERDALL PARCEL 62 SHI MASON COUNTY, VASHINGTON ISTG ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING ANAL 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINIGTON 985E8 360-275-9374 SITE PLAN NOT-St 1) 'OTAL LENGTH OF INFILTRATION TRENCH SHALL BE 150 FEET, AND DIVIDED INTO TWO C2) 75 FEET IN LENGTH BENCHES. 2) ;NFILTRATION TRENCHES SHALL FOLLOW THE NATURAL 6NTOUR WITH A HORIZONTALLY LEVEL BOTTOM, 3) [NFILTRATION TRENCHES SHALL BE SPACED AT A IINIMUM OF 20 FEET, 4) A DISTRIBUTION BOX SHALL BE UTILIZED IN ORDER TO EQUALIZE THE WATER FLOW IN BOTH TRENCHES. 5)GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE WRAPPED AROUND DRAIN LOCK, AND MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATI❑NSA 4' TO 8' DIA. RIPRAP 1' DEPTH IROPERTY REQUIREMENT TEST METHOD �! GRAB STRENGTH 80 LBS ASTM D4632 PLNCTURE STRENGTH 25 LBS ASTM C4833 TRAPEZOID TEAR 25 LBS ASTM C4533 APPARENT OPENING SIZE > M50 US SIEVE ASTM D4751 PERMEABILITY 0.004 CM/SEC ASTM D4491 2' MIN ROCK CRIB - DETAIL N.T.S, NATIVE COVER 6IN MIN GROUND SURFACE NOTES, 1) ROCK CRIB SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN LENGTH, AND CENTERED TO THE CULVERT. 2) CRIB SHALL BE LEVEL ON BOTTOM, AND PERPENDICULAR TO THE INLET FLOW, FILTER FABRIC WRAPPED AROUND DRAINROCK 3) ROCK CRIP IS TO BE FOUNDED ON COMPETENT SOIL. 3FT 4' PERFORATED RIGID PIPE + CENTERED IN TRENCH 1 3/4' 2FT WASHED DRAIN ROCK INFILTRATION TRENCH - CROSS SECTION N.T.S. YD CL�yFs' PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, WERDALL DRAINAGE PLAN ADDENDUM #2 �t ,3\�\ JEFF AND PAM VERDALL �V PARCEL 12221 62 10001 OAF�CGISTE��� ��� MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Ai t ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98328 360-275-9374 DRAINAGE DETAILS . . , �wv%rotech �wg%weer%wg �eotectiwical° 6v�v%roviw�ewtal°Ara%wGtge°RAADIwa� May 11,2011 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair,Washington 98528 RE: Foundation Inspection for Werdall Single Family Residential Property Located at 2501 Highway 302, Belfair,Washington Dear Mr.and Mrs. Werdall, Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) completed a site visit and conclusions for the planned foundation bearing strata for a typical single family residential structure located at the referenced address. The structure is planned to be a secondary abode. The site visit was conducted on May 11, 2011 in order to observe the soil conditions, and assess the suitability of the founding soils for use as bearing strata. Information pertaining to the project was provided by the owner of the referenced property. Information collected from site observations,and field testing was completed by Michael Staten with Envirotech. The foundation bearing soils appear to be relatively undisturbed native soils, to depths of at least 18 inches to over 8 feet. The soils were primarily a Poorly Graded Sand (SP) and Silty Sand with Gravel (SM). The fines content exhibited none to low plasticity. The bearing stratum was field measured to be dense. Relative density was assessed by measuring the resistance of hand tools within several locations of the planned building pad. It is concluded that the existing bearing soils and conditions are suitable for a structural pressure of no more than 1500 psf for foundation widths of at least 16 inches.The foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential settlement of 0.75 inch. The conclusions presented above were derived from engineering judgment using geotechnical standards in conjunction with the information collected from the site visit and owner of the Project. Excessive free moisture should be prevented from entering the foundation excavation prior to the placement of concrete. If excessive moisture is permitted within the excavation, or the founding subgrade is significantly disturbed prior to constructing the concrete footings,an additional geotechnical inspection is required. PO SoX_904 Setfa�r, wash%�.gtow-9s.52g Off: 360-2�.5-93�4 Celt: 360-6g9-6045 FAX: 360-275-4yTJ ewvi,rotech@aeotech vr.%ca Lew fo.cow� If you have any questions or need any further assistance, please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering CLYDe S G of WAS T9� � S/ll/ll A¢+ 43045 OA RFC/ST- �SSIDNALtiNG� Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director Page 2of 2 W � Hodge . engineeringinc, 11.22.11 Letter # 10.241 C RE: 2501 Estate Route 302 Hodge Eng. Project # 10.241 B Joist to Retaining Wall Connection To Whom It May Concern: I have provided the lateral and gravity load engineering for the Werdall ADU being built at 2501 Estate Route 302 in Mason County Washington. 1. Per the builder the Simpson A35s specified on detail 8a/D1 located on page D1 of my original engineering were not installed. The A35s are to connect the mud sill to the floor joists to support the basement concrete wall from overturning. The builder is to install (1) A35 to each perpendicular floor joist or perpendicular blocking. My original engineering specified (2) A35s but (1) may be used to the as-built wall. 2. Per the builder TJIs were used as solid blocking between the joists parallel to the wall. This is acceptable if the TJI blocking is installed per detail 8a/D1. The blocking is to be nailed to the 3/4" floor decking with (6) 8d nails each in lieu of 10d. See attached details and calculation for reference. Please contact e with any questions regarding this project. 11.22.11� Letter# 1 .2 p 37,886 John Hod This letter is the professional opinion of the engineer of record and regards his engineering only. This letter does not allow the builder to disregard Code requirements. Any schedule or cost impact is the responsibility of the builder or owner. The Building Inspector has the final authority to allow field changes to approved building plans. Hodge Engineering, Inc. John E.Hodge P.E. 2615 Jahn Ave NW Ste.E5 Gig Harbor,WA 98335 (253)857-7055 Fax(253)857-7599 8 (6)10d INTO EA.JOIST OR BLKNG. (1)10d TOENAILED Z RESTRAINED BY BASEMENT SLAB )DEPTH2X N JOISTS ARE PAR4LLEL� _ AND UPPER FLOOR JOISTS WALL,PROVIDE FULL ;,,; RIM JOIST PER PLAN BLOCKING S 14' O/C JOISTS BACK (I)$4 1-1/1'FROM TOP JOISTS s 16'O.C. BACK FILL 1 : 10 MINIMUM SLOPE AWAY 'SIMPSON' A35 a EA.JOIST BOTH SIDES 1X6 PT PLATE 5/8' ANCHOR BOLTS 0 11' O.C.FOR /\\/\\/\\/ RETAINING WALL 1\ n RESTRAINED RETAINING WALL SCHEDULE HORIZONTAL REBAR ACKFILL WITH FREE\ LL SOIL .4 m PER TABLE DRAINING WELL WALL HT. ggpyE WALL FTG FTG HOR FTG Q L GRADED MATERIAL j ABOVE SLAB SLAB WIDTH WIDTH DEPTH EBA EAR STEEL ct1 r \\BACKFILL ONLY 1/1 10'-6' 10' 8" 36" 10' 6"O.G 10"O.C. C3>#4 } I PRIOR TO JOIST\ Q ,I`I WATER PROOF\ 9'-6' 9' 8" 24' 10' 8'O.C. 10'❑.C. (3)#4 8'-6• 81 8' 24' 10' 12'0.C. 12'0.0 (3)#4 VERTICAL REBAR L < � -6 < 7 8 16 1 ' ' ' " ' 10• 18-O.C. 18•❑.c (2)#4 O HOOKED INTO \�\/\�\\� \� _ FOOTING d EXTEND a I a // Q 10' WALL FDOTING DIMENSION •A" = 20' - UP 24 MIN. CONCRETE (F'c) = 3000 psi (NO TEST REQ'D) REBAR (Fy) 40 k51 (60 k5i, "5) DIAMETER MIN. VER R K PASSIVE SOIL = 250 cF �'I ��j �j���j� ACTIVE SOIL 35 pcF \�� SOI i LENGTH BEARING = ,500 m d b SLAB OR DROPPED FLOOR / w SPLICE LE 0 4. 4' BASEMENT SLAB • �� \\ \ J • z m O� FTG.STEEL PER SCHEDULE u.l ALTERNATE HOOK �u \ \ 04 DRAIN PVC PIPE W/ n OPENINGS AT BOTTOM 'A'' FILTER FABRIC - NONWOVEN GEO TEXTILE TINPER TA E ENVELOPE IS' AROUND DRAIN PIPE 8a 6.109 JEH ROUTE PER DRAINAGE PLAN 5A&E1 IENT CONCRETE LUAL D1 �vlrv%rotech �v�g%v�,eer%v�g ceotechvar,al o Evwv roow.evvtal o pruL"ge Roadway November 5,2012 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair, Washington 98528 Reference: Stormwater Management Inspection for Werdall Single Family Property Located at 2501 Highway 302, Mason County, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Werdall, Envirotech Engineering(Envirotech) has conducted an inspection of the constructed drainage facilities at the referenced property. The drainage facilities and site vegetation are intended to accommodate both water quality and quantity as a result of developing the existing single family residence, existing driveway, and future accessory dwelling unit. Several site visits were accomplished over the past 2 years, with the most recent site visit on November 5, 2012 by Michael Staten, P.E. with Envirotech. The original drainage plan was composed by Envirotech on May 5,2008. Subsequently,two drainage plan addendums were provided to the owner in February and March of 2011. Based on our site inspections, it is our belief that the intent of the stormwater management plan and subsequent addendums were adhered to. Frequent monitoring by the property owner, and maintenance, if necessary, shall be followed per our drainage plan. This includes permanent vegetation, riprap, drainage catchments/conveyances,and infiltration trenches. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering CLYDF WASy�Y Ty) G 0 /I/5/lZ 43045 �sS�ONALENG\ Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director �o Sox984 gelfaLr, wash Moto vL99522 off: 360-2,-5937 4 CeLL: 360-689-6045 FCV: 360-275--4789 ewvLrotech@o eoteeh v�,Lea LLw fo.covk • f 1 � w ` o. CONCRETE MECHANICAL MANUFACTURED HOME M o Date Z / By T� X Ribbons Footings!Setbacks Gas Piping D o Interor Date By Interior-Date By Date By r o r 00 t=xterar Date�_ rZ_ By Exterior-Date B Set-up Point Load J Isolated Footings INSULATION Date By r�17 Date By Data SLAB INSULATION By FIRE DEPARTMENT! T Foundation Walls Floors Date By Date J ' '// By Data 1 Z —1 -- By DECKS FRAMING n Walls Date B% Date j L—/ — /! By T- ` Data By PROPANE TANKS PLUMBING vault ,L J1/� Date ey�_. Date By OTHER Groundwork Attic yyK /�j Type I's By Date By Date D.w.v B%� DRYWALL Type. Int.Brace Wall Date By W Date Z — ey Date By FINAL INSPECTION 0 Water Line Fire Seperation Dale By Date By Date 71 Pass or Request Inspect. Type of Insp. Fail Date Date Done By Comments Q CD T/ �r�� ss s-l�-ll �z-!r j �._- ov cs 6z oaf 6 �Ss za// s- T z pUv- ,-,5� 8 0 -sue/ *l" � V/ --fi,9 G�tic t_�. ✓9d�T r a �v�v%rotech �wgi,v�eer%wg Cieoteehw%caL a Evw. rovtimtvvUL°DraL",3e o Roadway November 5,2012 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair, Washington 98528 Reference: Stormwater Management Inspection for Werdall Single Family Property Located at 2501 Highway 302,Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs.Werdall, Envirotech Engineering(Envirotech)has conducted an inspection of the constructed drainage facilities at the referenced property. The drainage facilities and site vegetation are intended to accommodate both water quality and quantity as a result of developing the existing single family residence, existing driveway,and future accessory dwelling unit. Several site visits were accomplished over the past 2 years,with the most recent site visit on November 5, 2012 by Michael Staten, P.E. with Envirotech. The original drainage plan was composed by Envirotech on May 5,2008. Subsequently,two drainage plan addendums were provided to the owner in February and March of 2011. Based on our site inspections, it is our belief that the intent of the stormwater management plan and subsequent addendums were adhered to. Frequent monitoring by the property owner, and maintenance, if necessary, shall be followed per our drainage plan. This includes permanent vegetation, riprap, drainage catchments/conveyances,and infiltration trenches. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering CLYDg WASy�h T9�H ,� 43045 O �� 0- FC/s r`r/ONALE�G Michael Staten,P.E. Project Director 'PO gox984 SLLfAI,r,WAShLwAtow98528 Off. 360-2,-5937 4 Cell: 360-689-6045 RIX: 360-2�5-4�89 ewv%rotech@geotechwitclUmfo.co k F VW�'roteak �v�,g�weer�wg CleotechvacAL C EnV%ronvu.ewtRL-DNLvLage °ROAdwAU March 13,2014 Jeff and Pam Werdall PO Box 2517 Belfair,Washington 98528 RE: Geotechnica.l Inspection for Werdall Single Family Residential Property Located at 2501 Highway 302, Belfair,Washington—BLD 2013-00327 Dear Mr.and Mrs.Werdall, Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) completed multiple site visits over the past few years, field inspections and conclusions for the single family residential development at the referenced location. The most recent geotechnical inspection was conducted on March 10, 2014 in order to observe final construction,and assess the development from a geotechnical standpoint. The original geotechnical report, dated October 18, 2007, was prepared by Envirotech. Successive drainage plans, geotechnical letters and addendums were composed thereafter. Information pertaining to the project was provided by Mr. Werdall, owner of the property. Information collected from site observations,and previous field testing was completed by Michael Staten with Envirotech. Although we were not present on-site during the entire construction phase, it is apparent that development of the single family residence conformed to the intent of our original geotechnical report and successive engineering plans and reports. In addition, it is apparent that development conforms to prudent construction practices with relation to geotechnical design. Final erosion control is currently in progress. It is important for the homeowner to maintain drainage facilities, and maintain vegetation after it is established. The homeowner should notify Envirotech in the event of excessive erosion, sloughing of the slope,or drainage problems. If you have any questions or need any further assistance, please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering PtiL CLYDE sT WASy�� 9)tt i 43045 0 �� AWN FGISTER� ��(+ �SS�ONAL tiNG` Michael Staten,P.E. Project Director Po gox984 BeL A%r, washLv�gton98528 Off: 360-2.75937 4 C U: 360-689-6045 FAY: 360-271.5-4789 ewv%rotech@Aeotech wi.caLi.w fo.co�. r meson County Stormwater Cheekllst IFIV siwtI iyM mo Rtuir+ea ots of 1992 Stonnwater Manual The stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the 1992 Stormwater Manual. The checklist is idtended to identify the locations within the plan that ed the mi dmum requirements. Mason County will not perform a technical evaluation of the submittal. Rather,the checklist provides a guide to allow Mason County to review the submittal and determine if the applicant has addressed the minimum features that make up a stormwater plan. It is incumbent upon the applicant and his/her engineer to falfill all the applicable requirements of the 1992 Stormwater Plan as it related to the proposed project. Review by Mason County is imend0d to determine if the plan has addressed the minimum requirements and shoWd nbt be considered a review for technical accuracy of the plan. During oonstruction of the Project,the stornwater plan engineer of record or his/her authorized representative shall inspect the site to ensure the storrmwater plan is being implemented as designed. Upon completion of the project the engineer or his authorized representative shall be required to certify that&e mormwatea plan has been implemented as designed. Faihm to meet the mlinimuin requirements could result in delay or rejection of the application until the deficiencies are corrected. []#1:Enx*m matt Sediment Control.AN new development and redevelopment that includes kwW disWrb ft activities of or*acre or greater shall comply with erosion and sediment control r+equlrements 1 through 14,bellow.Compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements shall be demonstrated ttrough irroemertabon of a large pain erosion and sediment control plan. AU new development and redevelopment that Indudes land disturbing activities of less than one acre shall comply wM the smeo parrAg mtnimexn Mq found in Section 14AS.13D, Compliance with the small parcel requirements shall be damonstrmed through implementation of a small pared erosion and sediment control plan. Erosion and Senimeni Control Requirement#1:Stabilization and Sediment Trapping, See page/Paragraph F. 5 /Sew 7 0 Erosion and Sediment Control Re uIrement#2:Delineate Clearing and Easement Umb, Seepage/paraBr'aPh_�._� 1,arr 2 a��d�t�uw� Erosion and Sedim trot Requirement#3:Protection of Adjacent Properties. See page/paragraph_j s S 7 o Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#4:Timing and Stabilization of Sediment Trapping Measures. See pagelparagraph 2,9 ,C THI. PLANS MUST BE 1 C)tj Tf.{c,- I!`R S13E r6'R 11':SPEC TiON Erosion and Sediment C ntrd Requirement#b:Cut and Fill Slopes. See pagelparagraph 3 of aJdxn4vm Erosion and Sediment gontrol Requirement#8:Controlling Off-Site Erosion. See page/paragraph D. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#7:Stabilization of Temporary Conveyance Channels and Outlets: G SeepageJparagrapho2. 1 ,-vL C-fl-DIAZOdum Erosion and Sediment ntrol R uirernmnt#8:Storm Drain Inlet Protection, Seepagelparagraph Q=f ru o{- Erosion and Sediment gontrof Requirement#9: derground U ity Construction. See page/paragraph u a S g F ward "Erosion and Sediment C trol Requirement#10:Construction Access Routes. See pagelparagraph 5LC- 71 ( Erosion and Sediment CAydrol Requirement#11:Removal of Temporary BMPs. See pagelparagraph z�z �..6 0 Erosion and Sediment ntrol Requir t#.12:Dewatering Construction Sites. See page/paragraph e, ;r-Q S o n_Idzodu m- Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#13:CoMrd of Pdtutants Other than Sediment on Constni6tion Sites. See pagelparagraph 7O__,_s? S@t /0,0 Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#14:Maintenance. See pall graph P f re-c- P.0 Erosion and SedkTwd Cgnird Requirement#16:Financial IJability. See pagelparagraph 42. 5, Se-c.. 9,Z #2:Pi+awyetion of-Naturnl.DrAinage;lrsterns. Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained,and discharges from the site shall occur at the natural location to the maximum extent practicable. See page/paragraph e, ❑$3.Source Control of P...o4ution.Source control BMPs shall be applied to at projects to the maximum extent practicable.Source control BMPs shall be selected,designed,and maintained according to an approved marival. See page/paragraph 1- -31 5;c S: i , a,5, S�-, /0,o 0#4:Rtanofrrmg r►W�lt�s All projects shaft provide treatment of stonnwaier.Treatment BUPs shall be sized to c4"and treat the water quality storm,defined as the six4nordh, Wenty-four hour stone. The flFst priority for treatment of stormwater shalt be to b9ittrate as much as possible of the water quantt design storm kft the ground. Prefreahnent of stonnwater prior to infiltration into the ground may,be required. See page/paragraph CI, S; Z 2 PLANS A1UST B r� T,4E.lOt3 SITE r-"'IR 1i'SPECTiON []05: %ream!"M lroston 22ntrol.The requirement below applies only to situations where stormwaler runoff Is discharged directly or Indirectly to a stream,and must be met in addition to meeting the requirements In inimum requirement#4,Runoff Treatment 8MP's. See pagelparagraph_ Ny ❑06:Wetlands.Stormwster discharges to wetlands shall maintain the wetland's natural hydroperiod and flows to the$xlent needed to preserve or enter its existing functions and values.Prior to proposing dIsMarge of higher volumes of stomewater to a wetland,alternative dis�,detention,and "on practices located In areas oubide&e wets$hat;be evaluated and employed by project engineer where feasib4e and pradir�le See page/Paragraph #7:Wabr Quality n ttl4e Areas.Where the Mason County commissioners or their designee determine that the ttinimum requirements do not provide adequate protection of water quality sensitive areas,either -site or within the basin,more stringent controls shag be required to protect water quality.An adopted and implemented basin plan(minimum requirement#0)may be used to develop requirem6atts for water quality sensitive areas that are tailored to a spedfic basin. See pagelparagraph /l./f,A ❑08:QN=Stte Analysis and Downstream Analysis May Trigger Additional Requirements.The project enoirleer shell provide a detailed queftMve arralysls of the flow path of the dlscharge fromap ' site to the recelvlog water.This requirement stroll apply to all pro)ects where a drarosion control plan is prepared,Including those proposingretention facilities.Tshag include flow routing,and provide existing pipe ad channel sizes and estimatedn addition,the project engineer shall distress any known or expected dovrerstream er1,flooding,of water quality problems,including those tat may be caused by interflow from the phvosed retention faulty.The dtredor or designee strait have the discretion to specify the distarf i e and level of detail to be provided by the Project engtreeer.In making this determination,tt director or designee shall consider such factors as the relative size of the new development,availl3biltty of other hydrologic work for the drainage area,and the extent to which stormwater generated the projed site Is to bp infiltrated. Seepage/paragraph " J d!Q ❑#9i Basin PI n .-0-alLnAgan supersedes Manual Sco.page/p ph 0#10: ©cueration and'MaMterraeisce.An operation and maims sc*dule shaft be provided for s8 proposed stormweter facilities and BMPs,and the party(or parties)responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified.An operation and maintenance(OEM)covenant will be required to cover all pribately owned and maintained stomnvater facftes approved by the director.O&M Covenant forms are available at the Mason County public works office.A copy of the completed Instrument shall be recorded with the county auditors'office by the proponent and a copy of the recorded instrunient is required to be submitted to the public works department prior to final approval of the completed rmanent storm facilities. See p$ge/paragraph TF, " Pt AIDS MUST BE '•'! THIFJGu SATE 3 'r'SPECTION { I 1 []011.Financial Liability.P�formanca bonding,or oMer appropriate(nStllJmw t0 shad be required for all projects to enstue cornpliance with Owso standards. see pagrdparagraph OL2. 2 75C,f 1 a wn I certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 1992 Stodnwater Manual, Date A Date t✓LY��s „�4- was �1• f J,sFCj�B�d� . � jDN L a Tt!">t:P LANS �, -- MUST BE L r s HC iC)p SITE tr."Ecvoilj 4 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN APPROXIMATE LOCATION � 1 200 OF TOE OF SLOPE \ SCALE 1 DEN-100 FEET 390 FT APPROXIMATE LOCATION x x x x OF TOP OF SLOPE \x x x x \X X X , X X X 120 \ X X X \ X X X \ X X X \ X x' X Off' NC X ---- SOFT x X x x x x x x x x x 1 \x x x x i 160 \x x x x �,f \X x x x \x x�i 44 * �,x x x x x x PROPOSED 2-STORY ' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE a \' x x X i 140 e \ x' x x M \C x x w 2 PROPOSED SHOP / 120 DVELLING .o / VE J� APPROXIMATE LOCATION PROPOSED GPj SURFACED DR iVE / / — OF PROPOSED SEPTIC DRAINFIELD 100 / PROPERTY LINE / / — - --- LIMITS OF WATER - EXISTING OLD RATION 8 0 - INFILT LOGGING ROAD SILT FENCE OR APPROVED TEMPORARY 1 EROSION CONTROL TP3 —--- `- 60 EXISTING CPP - �y CULVERT -7\ 40 LEGEND PROJECT/ OVNER/ LOCATION, VEGETATION Q __ __ WERDAL L REMOVAL --- EXISTING PAVED ROAD GEOTECHNICAL REPORT x x INTERMEDIATE (E STATE ROUTE 302) JEFF AND PAM VERDALL SELECTIVE HARVESTING PARCEL NO 1221-62-100001 MASON COUNTY, VASHINGTDN SELECTIVE NOTES HARVESTING 1. EROSION CONTROL IS REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE, GENERAL LOCATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO SILT FENCES MAY BE ENGINEER SILT FENCE UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 2. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL 74 NE HURD ROAD SLOPE DIRECTION TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. FIELD MEASUREMENTS CONFIRMED BELFAIR, VASHINGTON 98528 __oo - EXISTING CONTOUR SLOPE GRADES AND VERTICAL RELIEFS, 360-275-9374 3 DRAINAGE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED TPI J@ TEST PIT IN APPENDIX D AND THE BODY OF THIS REPORT. SITE PLAN APPENDIX B SOIL INFORMATION SCALE) ®I INCH 100 FEET 6 e5-30 too GRADE PROPOSED IWlE �• .. . 100FT s SILT*'SAND AND STY. Z` IRA VEL CPVGIO . .. :.. SOIL CROSS-SECTION A-A :. 1"-1w NOTES, 1) BUILDINGS WILL BE CUT INTO SLOPE AND MAY BE PLACED ON ENGINEERING FILL. 2) SOIL PROFILE IS A RESULT FROM SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION METHODS AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. 3) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR SPECIFIC 90FT INFORMATION ON CUT AND FILL REQUIREMENTS. 4) GRADE CHANGES INCLUDE BUILDING CUTS, DRIVEWAY CUTS AND LIGHT GRADING TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE WATER FLOW. e 57FT NOTE- SOIL PROFILE CREEK ANTICIPATED TO BE SIMILAR TO PROFILE SHOWN ABOVE 10OF T PROJECT/ OVNER/ LOCATION WERDALL GEOTECHNICNICAL REPORT JEFF AND PAM VERDALL PARCEL NO. 1221 62 100001 SO T� /t D MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SOIL CROSS-SE`ram 13 ON -B ENGINEERi ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 1w=tar 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, VASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 SOIL PROFILE `MOT p(R HUN o IEQ U F-1 PROJECT: Wer+dall Geobechnical Report DAVE OF BOMMO: N/A PR WEC NO: 0727 LOWED BY: MCS CLDE V: Jeff and Pam Werdall EKVAWATrM- N/A LOC&T ON: Paroell 12221-62-100D01 DPJLL(L M: None Coun ty,,Washington 4�i Cou Washi ELEW&T : N/A ObTAL DEM OF W&M.- N/A IUD OEM OF WAQTM- N/A AIL aVIIJ4Tdq STANDARD PENEr ATM TN , DEP7H SAMPLER8 us= DEDCOWTIM LL fiat CURVE AND TEST DAVA H 10 30 W 0 6 .7 SM Darts brown LLT.�Y..�SAND with GRAVEL an r' •� d organkm mbdLwo. ,Y •t t ...... ..... ... .. . .... . Brown,very moist SILTY SAND with X. GRAVEL Gravel Is fie and subargilar, •, sand Is well-Uraded,and sit has crone b 2 very low plasticity.Medirxn dense. PH 4 ... . .. .......... ....... ..... Brown,very moist,medN,m decree SILTY ' SAND with few gravels.Sand Is we&graded.Silts are low plastic.Snell 5 "" pooloft of medwm ph"a slity day,and sand/gravel.Traoe of Way. +••r T Excavation 1Brrrf)mW at approodnot y 7 feet 6 i 0 flitr MvnNOn P fti, 0*b W*b0"and&l0W not b* I Engko cring Mop Mrd w MW kodkff t atft aaat asp. NU LOO `EST P7 HUM p ER 4p-2 pROOjFC : Werdall Gootwhnical Report DA VE OF BMNO: N/A PROJECT NO: 0727 LOWED BY: MCS CQ.OM: Jeff and Pam Werdali EXCAVATOR.- N/A LOC AMOK: Parcel 12221-62-100001 D DLL MCA: None Mason County,Washington LLEVQ70°�: N/A Oaf DEP'>M OF WATER: N/A F0MAL DEPTH OF WATER:TER: N/A DEFM 80IL 8M76, um DE2CMPTM LL R Bd CARVE &AMPLERS DEPTHAND 7 DK7A 96 360 � 0 .•.• - :: . SM Brown,law moisture SILTY SAND with . few gravels,boee b medium dense. Gravel is weli-graded and subangular to '! - subrounded.Sand Is mostty tlne and medium.Fines are non-phok— 2 Increasing density with depth 3 Medlum dense E=avatlon WmInOW at app v*nBtBIY 4 3.5 feet a e 8 9 10 00R04EC H EHOOaECfUNS n*&*mMMon pWWM 0*b ars b"v and Wow not b* Ampr.bd w wrp ram.&Vw w r .r PROJECT: Werdall Geotechnkal Report D&7E OF BMKa: WA PROJECT NO: 0727 LOWED [EV: MCS CUElnV: Jeff and Pam Werdall E C&WAT o : N/A LOCK7M: Parcel 12221-62-100001 DPJLL Mg: None Mason County,Washington (ELEW&700H: N/A Oa97AL D(EP'VG;i OF W&7EP: N/A [AIL OEM OF W&7 : N/A afrANDwec PwffMT orr Ter DEYMN SM WUPATA, l LL On DEPTH � CURVE WjmnmmAND TM DA7A 90 30 50 SM Brown,low moisture SILTY SAND with so, gravels,medhirn dense.Gravel Is wel4lraded and subar g Aw.Send is . q well-Waded.Fines are non-plastic to very -;. low pkwddty. ,r 2 3 Inc rea ft density with depth Medhan dense Exoavedon brrr*mded at gVmWmateiy 4 S.6 fleet a 8 7 8 9 10 ft Gmundwa w Encountered TM'kb,,Nft p«ti.rx 0*ro&*bwft and rwua nor e. Oeoftdkftal fErQhewinug rr.rr,+we w a.rp kx&W►&of"WOWS" L Ir00I' pMIr 00 TE07 F7 NUMBER ER 7P-k IPROJEO4: Werdall Geotec finical Report DD&7E OF RMHO: WA CPIIMJEC NO: 0727 LW4ED By: MACS C6O.,OENT: Jeff and Pam Werdall EXCAWQt 0fL* N/A O_OCA`U'M: Paroel 12221-62-100001 DMO-IL MG: None Mason County, Washington EL EWA n o NIA OHO70AL DEPV'Ga OF WA7ER: N/A FOOL DL(PM OF W9\T : N/A AIL VMF6a, c sTANDA PENE RAIM TEST SAMPLERS B DEWAVF ltM LL 11M CURVE AND TEST DATA ItllEP 1r4f1 N 10 30 so 0 ... _. SM Brrnrn,low miold a SILTY SAND with flew gravels,boss to medium demo. " Gravel Is weA�yreded and sum to 1 '` st&wxfed.Sand Is mostly fine and ;: medwm.Fines are nor►-plastic. 2 $ �, Irxxneeft density with depth ` : a Medrxn donee ExcaVatleon lem Irwiled at gVroximabey 4 3.5 feet 5 r i 5 !I 9 10 i 7?*b*o,,w a,vurtln anylo N.bong and ahwld nd b. En°=wIng k*#p ftd w b*kV fxda%w o/bt so @ ML I O WATER WELL REPORT CURRENT W 192267 ul&1'ea Lrole 2'e awser,3~a driller Notice of Intent No. . .. � OriQi copy D', °DPY- PY- ? i i 0 i e c r Unique Ecology Well ID Tag No. ALL312 N Constraction/Decommission(•'x"in circle) Water Right Permit No.EXEMPT WELL Construction Decomm' ion ORIGINAL BZTALLATIONNotice property Owner Name ANDREW SAVOIE CI of Intent Number - Well Street Address 2561 STATE ROUTE 302 (LOT 2) O C PROPOSED USE: I Domestic Industrial ❑ Municipal City BELFAIR County MASON O ❑ W Demmer Irrigation ❑Tent Wen ❑016er Location SE 1/4-1/4 NWI/4 See 16 Twn 221'R I W Evm ❑suck TYPE OF WORK o ner's member of.veil(if sore thin eno)LOT 2 W Wu Q�' ®New wdl ❑Recooditicmd method:®Cable m Rotary p� Lat/Long(s,t,r Lai Deg Lai Min/Sec E 0 Deepened DGfENS10N5: Di,.t v sfwdl 6 isobea,drood 160 fL Still REQUIRED) Long Deg Long Min/Sec Depth of com*W well 160 R CONSIRUCnON nerAllS Tax Parcel No. 122162490172 Cuing ®Welded A---: Diem.from _ft to 150 ft N Imt.{kd: Liner metalled Diem_from ft.to ft. CONS*rRUC770N OR DECOMMISSION PROCEDURE L Th mkd Diam,from fl.to ft. Forman®:Dnatbc by cola,t:timacta,Aim aCtnAterial and arttcsne,and the kind and O Perferatlowc Lj Yes WNo nature of the matemaal in each strusm peaeoated,with at le w one entry for each dtn8c of Type of perforatorssed_ mformation. SE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. � SIZE of parts o.by is and w.of per1's_fram_8 to_ft MATERIAL FROM TO 1 Screens: ❑Yn 63N. ❑K-Pac Lomioo SILTY BROWN TOPSOIL 0 Mmsfactorer's Name SILT BOUND SAND AND GRAVEL. 1 19 (Q Type Modd No. fl ft BROWN SILTY SAND 19 55 Dian. Slm»zz fiom ft to GRAY SILTY SAND 55 60 � Diem. Snot site from = GraveUFlloer paclted: Yes No ❑Sim otgtaveYnod BROWN SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL tr0 75 Materials pitted from ft to ft GRAVEL,SILTY SAND,WET 75 105 SurGesSes6 mYes ❑No 7ow►asdepth7 20 ft SILT BOUND BROWN SAND AND GRAVEL 105 128 C ncnrrnxrrt CIIIPS GRAY STICKY CLAY 128 152 Mmerml used in sea] L Did any strata eoMain nmusablo wane!/ []Yes ®No GRAVEL,BLACK COARSE SAND,WATER 152 160 � TYPc of water? Depth of suNa Method of seating atsate off PUMP: Manuftcnser's Name Type H.P. WATER LEVELS: Land-mdaoe ekvatim Above mean ao level__ft- y Static Irvel 62 R below top ofwen Dale 10/26/05 O Anesim pttxsore lbs.per square orb Date Artesian water is eootroued by WELL TFSTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below static lave] OWu s pump test made?❑Yes m No If yes,by whom/ O Yield: X.]tmin.with ft.drawdown after Las Yield:_ tcaUutia wim ft.drswdowu aftex Los. ' p� Yield:_�SatJ-in-with ft drawdows sfla ltrs. % p Recaw y dam(rmc mkt or zero when pump owned o81(water lever me wedfivm well 0 top to winter level) _ tiJ Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level ' E Dam of test rJcii,l`i11]Cllt CI Colo gy 19 Hailer trot gsfhois_will fit dnwdowo after bn. 0. Autest 30 gal/Win.with stun set at 140 to for 1 Ins. 4) Artesian flow -'pm. Date Tcmptmmt of water was a chemical anatyns made! ❑Yes m No � Start Dam I OR5/OS Completed Date I OR6/OS WELL CONSTRUCnON CERTIFICATION: I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well,and its compliance with all Washington well construction standards. Materials used and the information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief. ❑Driller ❑Engioee O train« Na I tin)ED NELSON Drilling Company ARCADIA DRILLING INC. Drilles/EnguiecrRninee Signausra O ro Address PO BOX 1790 Dn7lerortraince Licenac No. 1886 City,sure,Zip SHELTON WA 98594 Contractor's ItTRAINeE' ARCADDI096K1 p„e IOR6/OS DrlHer'■Licensed No. Registnnon No. Ddil-'s Siptsture Ecology is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ECY050-1.20(Rev 3/01) The Department of Ecology does NOT warranty the Data and/or Information on this Well Report. N WATER WELL REPORT �d Imam File Original with : A f�° /77 Department of Ecology M Second CoP9;ors C0A' STATE OF WASHGT+JN MOM WELL I D 117.0 * Water Right Pertnt No Name C (1) OWNER Aeoress -�P. 45 9110r1 A-/'r- 6'0'r (2) LOCATION OF WELL County 114--&--114 Sec1J6—T-,F-L`N R—I/'/ wM Y (m) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL (w nearest address) Z TAX PARCEL V40 1�21 �' QCXL-Z d (a) PROPOSED 115E Domestic ❑ hndrrstrut ❑ MunnCpel (10) WELL LOG or DECOMMf8310NRiG PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION ❑ Mnpat m ❑Test Well ❑ Other Fminahon Describe by color,character.am of materal and stnrcriae.and to ❑ OeWhhlar the land and nature of the material in each ea Stratum penetrated, pene ,with at least C (4) TYPE OF WORK rarrrmben of well(d more than one) one entry for cadre change d ambmubon Ytdtrate all vvaorr encountered r+ New Wes Method MATERIAL FROM TO G ❑ Deepened ❑Ap ❑ Barad TbA 1 Z O ❑ Reconditionedii(cme ❑Drwen C ❑ DecommMShon ❑ Rotary ❑ Jetted C:OAIo O (6) DIMENSIONS Dwnelar d wen aches 1113 Drilled Jaet Depth Of completed well S' It E (6) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 9 Metalled i C V Welded : Dim t m ft to TO ❑ Liner installed Dun from ft to ft ❑ Threaded Dram hom ft to ft w t- PalawtloM ❑Bias 0+ Type of perforator used CSIZE of perliambi s n by fC tram n to ft F+ Screens 04L ❑No -Pac Location -- ,0 a ManulaWrers Name Model No F= Type -' Dram_Slot Size DLhom 1!D rt to n Down Slot Sine from rt to n L C RI GravdfFWw paelad ❑Yes ❑Srze Of W—Usand i MaWW placed Rohn ft to ft fa Surface mw ❑NO T9 daplrty .Z� rt pe al h Material used in seal C&d&4 Did any strata ocntwn unueable wooer► ❑VW RIND Z Type d rater! Depth Of strata Mae—of seaft atrme art N () PUMP Msrn,Mchnees Name Q' O a Type Ta Ame i H P Ie (a) WATER LEVELS Land-surface akmdw above mean am level n 0 Static level / - ft below top of well Date Work Stmned ompleted C OArtewn pressure be per square inch Date V A►tow water as controlled by 1l (Cap valve.etc) WELL CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION 0 LD(9) WE TESTS Drawdown m erthount level hs lowered below static level I constructed andror acoept responsibility for mistruc4on of nus well,and its Me a pump best made ❑11es 1 „yes by whom? cunphence with al Waatrhgton well�nictgn standards Matermis used cal and the a1►lrhrnabon reported above � aba�ei,_,s/ro�tr,�eto rt ionovd ry best edge end beiref C Yield /inn wdh ft drewdown attar d inn with cal i with ft drawdown attar his Type or Pint Naim 7zkl ucense No I EYield ual/mn with h drawdown after furs (Licensed DnleNEngneer) V Recovery data(ame taken as zero when pump tuned A Maier level measured ham LKXKM NO m wan top to water leveq Ttawhae r /Q°/1Jd.G� ,OiP/C.UA/ CL Tor Trine e Water Level Water Level Tune Water Leval Drifting Compenny O,N71�a GC, (Signed) Lhcanse No ZI CAddress 000- /�a Y 9oT P r>•e�iy 1✓, '/e� Date of test Barkr test 0_9W him with b n diawdovvn afier�hrs Airiest gefJr.rr wAh n dmwdown soar Regrstratron No Arheaan now a p m Date (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) Tsmperalura d water Was a chensrBl anaiym mado? ❑Yea 8140 Ecology m an Equal Opportunity and Aftrrrrmatnmre Action employer for special ECl 05P1 20(lvse) accormnodoban +contact the Water Resources Program at PM)407 86W The TDD number rs PW)407-60M '700 (,1-016/5 R'r V'/aft/ $caic 1 24.UOO [, 11MI RHO I Yq; Airtres r�• ` ;;fir -APPRAximATc LocAT/0� r w, M I , low 5 r� C i t _ « - APPENDIX C EROSION CONTROL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAP AROUND TRENCH TO AT LEAST ENTIRE BOTTOM OF TRENCH BEFORE PLACING GRAVEL 2'x2'x5' WOOD POST OR SILT FENCE 12' DEEP, 8' VIDE TRENCH EQUIVALENT OR BETTER 1. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE SHALL BE PER SPECIFIED IN FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2' THE 'STORMVATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND WASHED GRAVEL BASIN,' OR APPLICABLE COUNTY STANDARDS am FT 2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SMALL BE PURCHASED IN A DIRECTION OF VATER FLOW--b EXISTING CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF EACH BARRIER TO GROUND SURFACE AVOID USE OF JOINTS. IF JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRIC 12' SHALL BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH A 2.5 FT MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND SECURELY FASTENED AT BOTH ENDS TO THE POST. 3. STANDARD FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FASTENED USING 1' 8' STAPLES OR TIE WIRES (HOG RINGS) 2 4 IN SPACING. 4. PASTS SHALL BE SPACED AND PLACED AT DEPTHS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS ON THIS SHEET, AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE N GROUND. .T.S. 5. WIRE MESH SHALL BE 2')C2*X14 GAUGE OR EQUIVILENT, THE WIRE MESH MAY BE ELIMINATED IF EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FABRIC (MONOFO_AMENT), AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED. 2'x2' WOOD POST (TYP) AND WIRE MESH 6, A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS ON OR EQUIVALENT OR BETTER THIS SHEET ALONG THE LINE OF THE POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM R 6 FT MAX. O.C. THE SILT FENCE. 0.5 FT 7. SILT FENCES SHALL BE LOCATED DOVNSLOPE FROM THE 6 FT --� CLEARING LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 2 7T 12, DEEP, 8' WIDE t 7 TRENCH FILLED WITH 3/4' TO 1 1/2' VaU W WI&W U 2.5 FT WASHED GRAVEL BOTTOM EXTENTS OF cn T FFN - D Tp[L PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL NOTES, GEOTEXTILE FABRIC N.T.S. SOD PLACEMENT 1. SOD FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL BE MACHINE CUT AT A 3/4-INCH UNIFORM THICKNESS AT THE TIME OF CURING MEASUREMENTS FOR THICKNESS SHALL EXCLUDE TOP GROWTH AND GENERAL NOTES, THATCH. L SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTRA MEASURES 2. STANDARD SIZE SECTIONS OF SOD FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SHOWN ON THESE PLANS PROVE TO BE INADEQUATE DURING CONSTRUCTION, SUPPORT THEIR OWN WEIGHT AND RETAIN THEIR SIZE AND SHAPE WHEN SUSPENDED BY THE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTEND OF A 3 FOOT SECTION. CONTROL FACILITIES. 3. ES FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL NOT BE HARVESTED ER TRANSPLANTED SWHEN SURVIVAL. 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE EXCESSIVELY DRY S VET MOISTURE CONTENT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS SITHIN AL. INSPECTED DAILY AND IMMEDIATELY MAINTAINED, IF NECESSARY. 4. S® FOR GRASS SVALES SHALL BE HARVESTED, DELIVERED AND PLACED WITHIN A 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND DEVICES SHALL BE PERIOD OF 36 HOURS. LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY SEEDING FOR RAW SLOPES STABILIZED. 1. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTALL NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONTROL MEASURES SUCH AS TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES, GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES, SVALES, LEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. FOR ALL AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION OR EXPERIENCED 2, THE SEED BED SHALL BE FIRM WITH FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, FOLLOWING SURFACE LAIRD DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED ROUGHENING PERFORM ALL ITERATIONS ACCROSS OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING THE LISTED CRITERIA BELOW, ALL DISTURBED AREAS 3. SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS, AS SHOWN BELOW, AND SHOULD BE APPLIED AT THE RATE MET BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING 13R OTHER OF 120 POUNDS PER ACRE, APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME IF YEAR. 4. SEED BEDS PLAITED BETWEEN MAY LAND OCTOBER 31 WILL REQUIRE IRRIGATION AND GRASS SEEDING ALONE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE DURING THE MONTHS OF OTHER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO FOSTER AND PROTECT THE ROOT STRUCTURE. APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER.HOWEVER, SEEDING MAY PROCEED WHENEVER IT IS 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER I AND APRIL 30, ARMORING IB' THE SEED BED IN THE INTEREST OF THE OVNER/CONTRACTOR, BUT MUST ALSO BE AUGMENTED VILL BE NECESSARY, (vq GEOTEXTILES, JUTE MAT, CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING). WITH MULCHING, NETTING OR OTHER APPROVED TREATMENT. 6. FERTILIZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS' RECOMENDATION& AMOUNTS DRY SEASON (MAY I THRU SEPTEMBER 30> -- THE CLEARING OF LAND, SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIALLY ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND WETLANDS. INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION OR OTHER GROUND COVER, USE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURE FOR EROSION CONTROL, IR A COUNTY MUST BE LIMITED TO ONLY AS MUCH LAND AS CAN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE APPROVED ALTERNATE SEED MIXTURE. PROTECTIVE COVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED , BY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30 OF A PROPORTIONS PURITY GERMINATION GIVEN YEAR. UNLESS IMMEDIATE STABILIZATION IS SPECIFIED IN THE EROSION NAME BY WEIGHT (X) (X) (X) AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, ALL AREAS CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED MUST BE APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED THROUGH THE USE OF MULCHING, NETTING, REDTOP (AGROSTLS ALBA) 10 92 90 PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., BY ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40 98 90 SEPTEMBER 30 OR SOONER PER THE APPROVED PLAN OF ACTION. UNLESS CHEWING FESUE 40 97 80 OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING (FESTUCA RUBRA COMIUTATA> OF CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PERFORMED DURING (JAMESTOWN, BANNER. SHADOW, KOKET) THE FOLLOWING PERIODS, MARCH I TO MAY 15, AND AUGUST 15 TO OCTOBER 1. WHITE DUTCH CLOVER 10 96 90 SEEDING AFTER OCTOBER 1 WILL BE DONE WHEN PHYSICAL COMPLETION OF THE (TRIFOLIUM RCPENS) PROJECT IS IMMINENT AND THE ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE CONDUCIVE TO SATISFACTORY GROWTH. IN THE EVENT THAT PERANENT STABILIZATION IS NOT MULCHING POSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF GROUND COVER, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC., MUST BE INSTALLED BY 1. MATERIALS USED FOR MULCHING ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE WOOD FIBER CELLULOSE, AND NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30, SHOULD BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 10,00 POUNDS PER ACRE. IN THE EVENT THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT 2. MUNCH SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED SLOPES GREATER THAN 211 (HORIZONTAL-VERTICAL). ACTIVITIES ARE DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE 3. MLCHING SHOULD BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN AREAS WHICH CANNOT OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. ALL AREAS REQUIRING MULCH SHALL BE COVERED BY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES INNEDIATELY AFTER STORM NOVEMBER 1. EVENTS, AND AT LEAST ONCE EVERY WEEK, THE OWNER/ CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ALL EROSION AN SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. WET SEASON (OCTOBER I THRU APRIL 30> -- ON SITES WHERE UNINTERUPTED PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS IN PROGRESS, THE CLEARING IMF LAND, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND OTHER GROUND COVER, SHALL BE WERDALL LIMITED TO AS MUCH LAND AREA AS CAN BE COVERED OR STABILIZED WITHIN G E❑TECHNICAL REPORT 24 TOURS IN THE EVENT A MAJOR STORM IS PREDICTED AND/ OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OF-SITE IS OBSERVED. JEFF AND PAM WERDALL ALL CLEARED OR DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE PARCEL NO. 1221 62 100001 COVER OR BE OTHERWISE STABILIZED, SUCH AS MULCHING, NETTING, PLASTIC MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEETING, EROSION BLANKETS, FREE DRAINING MATERIAL, ETC., WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN CLEARED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED IF NOT BEING DESIGNER- ACTIVELY WORKED. SILT FENCING, SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, ETC., WILL NOT BE VIEWED AS ADEQUATE COVER IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN THE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING EVENT THAT ANY LAND AREA NOT BEING ACTIVELY WORKED REMAINS 74 NE HURD ROAD UNPROTECTED OR HAS NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY STABILIZED 5 DAYS AFTER BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 WAVING BEEN CLEARED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON THE SITE, EXCEPT 360-275-9374 FOR APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTIVITY, SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS AFOREMENTIONED LAND AREA HAS BEEN ER❑SI❑N CONTROL APPROPRIATELY PROTECTED OR STABILIZED. APPENDIX D DRAINAGE DETAILS STEEL CLAMPS (TYP) 10 FT KIN SPACING 1/2 INCH DIAMETER CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE SECURELY FASTENED TO PIPE 6-INCH MIN. DIAMETER B-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR APPROVED ENERGY DISSIPATOR LEVEL SECTION 0 0000000000000 TWO 3-FOOT 0000000o 1 FT MIN, ANCHORS (TYP), 0000000000000 04 REBAREQUIVALENT OR EQUIVALENT a Fr MIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TIGHTLINE DETAILS N.T.S. FINAL GROUND SURFACE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAPPED AROUND QUARRY SPALL 9-12 INCH QUARRY SPALL OR CORRUGATED TIGHTLINE APPROVED INFILTRATION MEDIA 6-INCH MIN. DIAMETER ^'o _ .0000000.0000... 00000000000000 1 FT , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DETAILS NOTE, N.T.S. INFILTRATD?1 FACILITY COMPONENTS AND SIZEMAY NEED TO BE DETERMINED BY A DRAINAGE ENGINEER AND/ OR PREVAILING GOVERNMENT AGENCY. 1 FT MIN 1 IF' NOTE- SLOPES FOR GRASS-LINED SWALES SHALL NOT IFT MIN --, �— EXCEED 5.07 WITHOUT APPROPRIATE ENERGY DISSIPATORSGRASS-1INFD SWALE N.T.S. PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION WERDALL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT JEFF AND PAM WERDALL PARCEL NO. 1221 62 I00001 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGT13N ENGINEER, ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 DRAINAGE DETAILS APPENDIX E SLOPE STABILITY Simplified Bishop Method Werdall Geotechnical Report Input 30% slopes major slope minor slope Vertical Relief(ft) 100 1 Slope horizontal distance (ft) 330 100 Soil Type Depth to top Unit weight friction angle, cohesion, of soil layer(ft) of soil (pcf) phi, (deg) c (psf) Soil 1 M.Dense SM 0 138 34 200 Soil 2 Very Stiff ML 4 136 32 200 Soil 3 V.Dense SM 7 140 40 600 Soil 75 140 34 200 Soil 5 120 128 0 400 Minor Slope 140 35 200 Surcharge (psf) 2000 Surcharge distance from top of slope 0 Surcharge must be beyond top of major slope Factor of Safety, FS Trial 1 2.5 assumed value Trial Radii (ft) 46 Output Center of circle at top of slope Slope Inclination, beta (deg) 16.87 90- beta (deg) 73.13 (90)+beta+theta (73.13) Horizontal Length of all slices (ft) 90.01 Horizontal length from center (ft) 44.01 horizontal distance from center of circle to left end of 1st slice Radius of slip plane 1 (ft) 344.82 for a slip circle at toe of slope Factor of Safety, FS Trial 2 2.48 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 3 2.48 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 4 2.48 b h A alpha c phi Slice Horizontal Left height Right height Ave. Slice Slice Slice Base W* cohesion friction cb+ Number Width ft of slice ft of slice ft Height ft Areas eight (lb) Inclination de sin al ha c angle (deg) tan(phi) 11 9.0 0.0 19.2 9.6 86.5 11,933.0 73.1 11,414.7 600.01 40.01 15,406.6 21 9.0 19.2 30.1 24.6 221.8 30,871.4 49.5 23,480.7 600.0 40.0 31,286.3 31 9.0 30.1 37.6 33.8 304.4 42,439.9 34.4 23,969.1 600.01 40.0 40,986.5 41 9.0 37.6 42.9 40.2 362.1 50,513.7 21.7 18,640.3 600.0 40.0 47,756.3 5 9.0 42.9 46.0 44.4 399.9 55,809.4 10.0 12,793.2 600.0 40.0 67,302.3 6 9.0 46.0 44.9 45.4 409.1 57,088.8 1.2 1,565.1 600.0 40.0 68,470.2 7 9.0 44.9 41.9 43.4 390.6 54,508.7 12.5 15,750.9 600.0 40.0 66,401.9 8 9.0 41.9 36.5 39.2 352.8 49,214.4 24.4 27,854.7 600.0 40.0 62,057.7 9 9.0 36.5 27.3 31.9 287.3 40,039.4 37.5 35,573.5 600.01 40.0 54,459.6 10 9.0 27.3 0.0 13.7 123.0 17,042.1 53.5 28,636.5 600.0 40.0 35,271.6 199,678.7 Slice m(alpha) m(alpha) m(alpha) Weight from Wt. from W Number(Trial FS1 Numerator1 (Trial FS2 Numerator2 (Trial FS3 Numerator2 Surcharge (lb) Minor Slope Total Wt 1 0.61 25,159.29 0.61 25,070.84 0.61 25,057.27 0 0 11,933 2 0.90 34,596.25 0.91 34,530.66 0.91 34,520.57 0 0 30,871 3 1.01 40,393.94 1.02 40,343.22 1.02 40,335.42 0 0 42,440 4 1.05 45,344.45 1.05 45,308.59 1.05 45,303.08 0 0 50,514 5 1.04 64,528.11 1.04 64,503.90 1.04 64,500.17 18,002 13 73,824 6 1.01 68,010.25 1.01 68,007.08 1.01 68,006.59 18,002 126 75,217 7 1.05 63,306.36 1.05 63,276.86 1.05 63,272.32 18,002 239 72,751 8 1.05 59,139.72 1.05 59,087.29 1.05 59,079.22 18,002 353 67,570 9 1.001 54,576.67 1.00 54,501.67 1.00 54,490.13 18,002 466 58,508 10 0.86 40,802.63 0.87 40,717.11 0.87 40,703,97 18,002 580 35,624 495,857.66 495,347.23 495,268.75 Trial Calc Radius (ft) F.S. FS FS 2.50 2.48 30 2.6 2.48 2.48 40 2.6 2.48 2.48 50 2.5 Output Center of circle at 20 ft to left of top of slope Slope Inclination. beta (deg) 16.87 20 ft from center 90 - beta (deg) 73.13 90 + beta (deg) 106.87 alpha (deg) 7.25 function of the radius offset 90 - beta - alpha (deg) 65.88 function of the radius offset (90)+beta+theta (65.89) Horizontal Length of all slices (ft) 87.97 Horizontal length from center(ft) 41.97 horizontal distance from center of circle to left end of 1st slice Radius of slip plane 1 (ft) 325.73 for a slip circle at toe of slope Factor of Safety, FS Trial 2 2.38 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 3 2.38 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 4 2.38 sin (beta) 0.29 sin (90-beta) 0.96 b h A alpha c phi Slice Horizontal Left height Right height Ave. Slice Slice Slice Base W" cohesion friction cb + NurnberWidth ft of slice ft) of slice ft Height ft Areas Weight (lb) Inclination de 'sin al ha c an le de tan(phi) 1 8.8 0.0 14.2 7.1 62 5-1 8,578.3 65.8 7,824.7 600.0 40.0 12,471.3 2 8.8 14.2 24.5 19.4 170.31 23,670.1 46.1 17,058.6 600.0 40.0 25,125.7 3 8.8 24.5 31.7 28.1 247.4 34,465.1 32.0 18,242.7 600.0 40.0 34,177.3 4 8.8 31.7 36.9 34.3 301.8 42,074.8 19.8 14,220.7 000.0 40.0 40,558.0 5 8.8 36.9 40.5 38.7 340.3 47,468.7 8.4 6,963.7 600.0 40.0 45,080.8 6 8.8 40.5 41.9 41.2 362.6 50,586.2 2.5 2,173.4 600.0 40.0 47,694.8 7 8.8 41.9 41.5 41.7 366.9 51,195.1 13.6 11,991.6 600.0 40.0 48,205.4 8 8.8 41.5 36.2 38.8 341.7 47,657.8 25.2 27,811.3 600.0 40.0 60,079.3 9 8.81 36.21 27.1 31.6 278.2 38,766.E 38.1 34,898.8 600.0 40.0 52,715.0 10 8.81 27.1 0.01 13.51 119.0 16,485.0 54.0 27,805.0 000.0 40.0 34,122.8 168,990.5 Slice m(alpha) m(alpha) m(alpha) Weight from Wt. from W Number(Trial FS1 Numerator) Trial FS2 Numerator2 (Trial FS3 Numerator2 Surchar a (lb) Minor Slope Total Wt R-b(10-#) h-b# 1 0.72 17,423.38 0.72 17,373.38 0.72 17,365.70 0 0 8,578 (33.18) 34.28 2 0.93 26,872.97 0.94 26,826.27 0.94 26,819,09 0 0 23,670 (24.38) 25.49 3 1.03 33,312.57 1.03 33,273.79 1.03 33,267.83 0 0 34,465 (15.58) 16.69 4 1.05 38,461.42 1.06 38,433.60 1.06 38,429.32 0 0 42,075 (6.78) 7.89 S . 1.04 43,414.33 1.04 43,400.49 1.04 43,398.35 0 0 47,469 2.01 (0.91) 61 1.01 47,060.11 1.01 47,055.60 1.01 47,054.91 0 0 50,586 10.81 (9.70) 7 1.05 45,877.48 1.05 45,854.39 1.05 45,850.84 0 0 51,195 19.61 (18.50) 8 1.05 57,345.89 1.05 57,293.33 1.05 5.7,285.24 17,595 104 65,356 28.41 (27.30) _9 0.99 53,035.35 1.00 52,961.12 1.00 52,949.70 17,595 212 56,573 37.20 (36.10) 10 0.86 39 682.65 0.86 39,598 58 0.86 39 585.67 17,595 320 34,400 46.00 (44.89) 402,486.16 402,070.56 402,006.65 Trial Calc Radius (ft) F.S. FS FS 2.50 2.38 30 2.5 2.38 2.38 40 2.4 2.38 2.38 45 2.35 50 2.4 60 2.4 Simplified Bishop Method Werdall Geotechnical Report 60% slopes Input 50ft Setback major slope minor slope Vertical Relief (ft) 80 1 Slope horizontal distance (ft) 130 100 Soil Type Depth to top Unit weight friction angle, cohesion, of soil layer(ft) of soil (pcf) phi, (deg) c (psf) Soil 1 M.Dense SM 0 138 34 200 Soil 2 Very Stiff ML 4 136 32 200 Soil 3 V.Dense SM 7 140 40 600 Soil 4 75 140 34 200 Soil 5 120 128 0 400 Minor Slope 140 35 200 Surcharge (psf) 2000 Surcharge distance from top of slope 50 Surcharge must be beyond top of major slope Factor of Safety, FS Trial 1 2.5 assumed value Trial Radii Qt)_ 100 Output Center of circle at top of slope Slope Inclination, beta (deg) 31.62 90 - beta (deg) 58.38 (90)+beta+theta (58.38) Horizontal Length of all slices (ft) 185.12 Horizontal length from center (ft) 85.12 horizontal distance from center of circle to left end of 1st slice Radius of slip plane 1 (ft) 152.64 for a slip circle at toe of slope Factor of Safety, FS Trial 2 2.05 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 3 1.99 Factor of Safety, FS Trial 4 1.98 -------b-- --- - h - A alpha c phi-------- Slice Horizontal Left height Right height Ave. Slice Slice Slice Base W' cohesion friction cb + NumberWidth ft of slice ft of slice ft Height ft Area (sf) Wei ht (b) Inclination de sin al ha) (pcf) angle (deg) lan hi 1 18.5 0.0 33.6 16.8 310.8 43,135.8 58.3 36,700.9 600.0 40.01 47,276.6 2 18.5 33.6 58.1 45.8 848.2 118,371.8 41.7 78,779.1 600.0 40.0 110,361.8 _ 3 18.5 58.1 77.3 67.7 1,253.0 175,045.1 28.7 84,073.1 600.0 40.0 157,882.1 4 18.5 77.3 92.6 84.9 1,572.4 219,763.0 17.2 64,853.8 200.0 34.0 151,838.3 5 18.5 92.6 99.7 96.1 1,779.9 248,811.7 6.3 27,378.8 200.0 34.0 171,549.1 6 18.5 99.7 96.6 98.1 1,817.0 254,005.1 4.2 18,740.6 200.0 34.0 175,373.3 7 18.5 96.6 89.6 93.1 1,723.0 240,850.2 15.0 62,614.4 200.0 34.0 166,829.3 8 18.5 89.6 77.7 83.6 1,548.1 216,365.3 26.4 113,208.0 200.0 34.0 175,605.6 _ 9 _ 18.5 77.7 58.0 67.8 1,255.5 175,405.5 39.0 134,975.6 600.0 40.0 191,000.4 10 18.5 58.0 0.0 29.01 536.5 74,742.9 54.6 93,135.9 600.0 40.0 106,997.4 714,460.2 Slice m(alpha) m(alpha) m(alpha) eight from Wt. from W Number(Trial FS1 Numerator1 (Trial FS2 Numerator2 Trial FS3 Numerator2 Surcharge (lb) Minor Slope Total Wt 1 0.81 58,307.34 0.87 54,109.06 0.88 53,469.18 0 0 43,136 2 0.97 113,822.81 1.02 108,325.02 1.03 107,462.32 0 0 118,372 3 1.04 152,073.32 1.07 147,043.43 1.08 146,239.50 0 0 175,045 4 1.04 146,698.97 1.05 144,254.16 1.06 143,855.70 0 0 219,763 5 1.02 167,596.66 1.03 166,533.31 1.03 166,357.88 0 193 249,004 6 1.02 172,419.81 1.02 171,681.51 1.02 171,559.42 0 673 254,678 7 1.04 161,077.17 1.05 158,720,29 1.05 158,335.23 0 1,152 242,003 8 1.02 172,880.77 1.04 168,503.46 1.05 167,797.32 37,025 1,632 255,022 390-: 0.99 193,259.99 1.03 184,572.33 1.04 183,203.53 37, .25 2,112 214,542 0.85 125 372 32 0.91 117,109.09 0.92 115,840.11 37,0251 2,5921 114,359 1,463,509.16 1,420,851.66 1,414,120.20 Trial Calc Radius (ft) F.S. FS FS 2.50 2.05 r 2.05 1.99 # _ 1.99 1.98 _ 0 s 14— g- LL `5 r •�, ; W IT � y4 cat ic 0 a 4, IZJ Oil I NN l��7 (z- �a LLAe a 4 1' b IC U O N O .r.� 1{11 6� a C4. O� •� � 1(� � � .� kit ff o t � • APPENDIX F GEOLOGICAL MAP i APPROXIMATE LOCATION 200 OF TOE OF SLOPE � `� \ FY 390 FT t WCALZ t nips•11D IF APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TOP OF SLOPE V � 120 50 FEET BUFFER BETWEEN TOP OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 40% OND BUILDING STRUCTURES. SELECTIVE HARVESTING WITHIN THE BUFFER ALLOWED PER THE GEOTECHN CAL \ bQ•�' REPORT. A 180 \ _ � B 160 1 m APPROXIMATE PROPOSED 2-STORY N I END OF\TOP OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE STEEP SLOPE 140 120 —o PROPOSED SHOP � DVELLING j PROPOSED GR VE / B APPROXIMATE LOCATION SURFACED DR VEWA / / /'— - - OF PROPOSED SEPTIC DRAINFIELD 100 PROPERTY LINE / / •/ ---- LIMITS OF EXISTING OLD WATER 90 LOGGING ROAD INFILTRATION APPENDIX G VICINITY MAP i ' � 1 i c Rs✓lk is.: i i 1 ' i yl,U f d� { � v lkrrrtraaue lam � ' i - ur n p i q a i n9 r Z �CmSE7,ME 41 1 A F8r � E CORsn'U-1 Gaon Lehr i•I-XV 1� ApO` ` E LAKELAND DR are FFF 1 .- .��,G�' LsAaAal+lerson I tau ---- ` a j i i j f f�u��fr�rrt h�IcrsrJyt Cott�tt;� tf'eh,c�le ! 1 j I 1 i 1 � 1 } 1 i 1 1 APPENDIX H DRIVEWAY DETAILS 1 4' SURFACE COURSE 95% COMPACTION LI 2% MIN 1 ORIGINAL GRADE PREPARED SUBGRADE (SEE REPORT) TYPICAL ROAD CKM Wr 70 9aAI8 NOTES- 1. ROAD SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM GRADE REQUIRED BY PREVAILING GOVERNMENT STANDARDS. 2. ROAD SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET VIDE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONi OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. WERDALL 3. SURFACE COARSE MATERIAL SHOULD MEET OR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EXCEED THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS PRESENTED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, JEFF AND PAM WERDALL 4. THE PREPARED SUBGRADE SHALL EXTEND AT PARCEL NO. 1221 62 IDOD01 LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE COARSE AND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ENGINEER ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 ROAD CR❑SS-SECTION f - Mason County Review Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion.The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director. Applicant's Name: _x4 l Permit#r7O. DD Parcel# 2_1 t �� 00001 ` Qo Date(s)of the Document(s) reviewed: 2,0 7 a ev (1) (a)Ad cussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK?V��Comment: (b) Aaiscussion of specific soil types OK? Comment: (c) A i cussion of ground water conditions OK?—( Comment: (d) A Vcussion of the upslope geomorphology OK? l y Comment: (e) Aiscussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands OK?�_Comment: (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the ref�r�nc d maps and records OK. 11�o—womment: (2) A site pl n which identifies the im ortant development and geologic features. OK? q Comment: So A (3) Location and logs of exploratory hb� or probes. OK?Comment: z C,>,:, C? (4) The area of the proposed developm nt, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setba s afjall be delineated (top, both sides, and Pe)o a geologic map of the site. K?�O Comment: (),n'Xl (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scalewhich adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which,it cor orates the details of propo grade c anp�s. OK?Comment: 15 (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismiVafety factor is 1.1. and the quasi'-static an ly i oeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK? Z& Comment: (7) (a)Appr hate restrictions on placemen -aina .e featu s OK? Comment: (b) Ap ro riate restrictions on placem n of se tic drain fields OK? Comment: Y 1 (c) AP ropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings OK? Comment: (d) Re mmended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 I OK? Comment: Q (e) Rec6mmended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. ( ) OK?f(ildl Comment:�(Srl 8 Reco endations for the re ration of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. 7 OK? ��Comment: C (9) Recomri'fendations for the preparation of a detail d temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construe ion methods. OK? Comment: �ts �(10) An an sis of both on-site and o -site impthe pr posed development. OK? U& Comment: (11) Specifi ations of final development corJditi6ns su h as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Gay/C G 7,) OK? _Comment: (12) Recorn endations for the preparation of structural mitigatioh or details of other proposed mitigation. OK? Comment: (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and prop se deve p ent o,0 t�e� OK?_ 1/ Q�Comment: �/ �( 1 D �I. Are the Documents signed and stamped? Type and #of License: 3v� If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by , on Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/UPDATE: Reviewed by on Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE: Reviewed by , on Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geological Assessment Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report !�A$plt COLJ N-r„ Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. if an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. (�2-I /a„ ZZ I Applicant/Owner T2�d- PaM b4v/e"/I Parcel# /2 2 2-1 6 Z /0,00 Site Address 2-50 1 1-, /IWo cow i L v A (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 6 (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 6 (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 7 (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) .3 (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) 3 (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) (2) A site plan which identifies the imPporfant development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) 5,�h(ar, (,q„� A (3) Locations and logs of explorato Iholes or probes. Located on Maps)�� (Cuq A .1(,ys (,A19f,6 (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated Stop, bot sides, and toe)on a"geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) O O o le (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details-of pro ose rade changes. Located on Map(s) So;1 l�ro ' (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions_Analysis should examine worst case failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles_The minimum static safety factor is 1.5.the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1.and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) /3_ /1/ 1 1 (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placeme t of dra!inagg features Located on page(s)_r� �a b4d jZvjuh1k (b) Appropriate restrictions loriplacement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) 9, // Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. J r (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property.? Located on page(s) 1 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) /S (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 7 ZO (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be Implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 15,, - /=ioy,a, Roo Sefrrd�0— (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 8 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) /3�/5�16�f T (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigatlon or details of other proposed mitigation. r Located on page(s) (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property.boundaries, scale,north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and pr posed eveIlopment on the site. Located on Map(s) S,i� a n ne A u W, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civic efiginew licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engkwering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions.I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated QrJ /9. 200'?,and entitled�t?.o [Nrti cal /�cGar n! klef Ju( , l✓�h9 Fixrh; /Zo S e meets aft the requirements of the Mason urce County Reso arbe.Landilkle Hazard section,is eomplele and true,that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the Included geotechnical design recommmdations.and that aN hazerds are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and put1c health and safety,(Sig ohre mW Stamp) L1, CLYDF IG�,A"oF wasy,ST-YJ. a� 43045 cif �FGitsT£eS SS�DNALENG Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done In this Geotechnical Report.